interwebsfamous

[interwebsfamous]

A Two-State Solution

Inspired by Eric Levitz's excellent discussion of how a viable two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem, I'd like to suggest the following as a terms of a workable deal at the end of hostilities.

Citizenship

Palestinian citizenship shall be automatically granted by the Palestinian government to any person born in or permanently residing in the British Mandate of Palestine or the lands controlled by Israel after September 29, 1923, or any person directly descended from such a person so long as that person is not an Israeli citizen.

Israeli citizenship shall be granted by the Israeli government to any person is classified as Jewish under the the Law on the Right to Return and born in or permanently residing in the British Mandate of Palestine or the lands controlled by Israel on or after September 29, 1923 or who requests to permanently reside in Israel or any person directly descended from such a person.

Due Process of Law

Neither government shall deprive any person under its control of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.

Neither government shall take private property for public use without just compensation.

Neither government shall deprive any citizen of the other of a fundamental right provided to its own citizens.

Residency. Any Palestinian or Israeli citizen may live in any lands controlled by Israel or Palestine, unless the government of which the person is not a citizen has imposed such a restriction after duly convicting that person in a court of law for a crime of actual or attempted violence.

Voting Rights

Any adult person over the age of seventeen (17) with Israeli citizenship shall be guaranteed the right to vote for the Israeli government on the principle of one person, one vote.

Any adult person over the age of seventeen (17) with Palestinian citizenship shall be guaranteed the right to vote for the Palestinian government on the principle of one person, one vote.

Territory

Each government shall permit the other to purchase property and operate services in the lands either controls for the purpose of providing any services required or permitted under this agreement or similar services to those which that government provides to its own citizens.

The Territories of Gaza and the West Bank shall be those territories currently within the borders of Israel controlled by Egypt or Jordan on January 31, 1967.

The Territory of Palestine shall be the Territories of Gaza and West Bank and Palestinian government property within the Territory of Israel as permitted by this treaty, but not including Israeli government property within the Territory of Palestine as permitted by this treaty.

The Territory of Israel shall be the territories controlled by the Israeli government before this treaty was ratified, except the Territories of Gaza and West Bank and Israeli government property within the Territory of Palestine as permitted by this treaty, but not including Palestinian government property within the Territory of Israel.

Courts

Rights of an Israeli Citizen

If an Israeli citizen is charged with any violation of law by the Palestinian government or sued by a citizen of Palestine or any entity properly organized under Palestinian law, the Israeli citizen may request trial in an Israeli court following Palestinian rules of procedure with a judge appointed by the Palestinian government and any jury permitted by such laws to be made up of Israeli citizens.

If an Israeli citizen is harmed by a crime committed by a Palestinian as defined by Palestinian law, the Israeli government may appoint a prosecutor to prosecute that crime in Palestinian courts.

Rights of a Palestinian Citizen

If a Palestinian citizen is charged with any violation of law by the Israeli government or sued by a citizen of Israel or any entity properly organized under Israeli law, the Palestinian citizen may request trial in a Palestinian court following Israeli rules of procedure with a judge appointed by the Israeli government and any jury permitted by such laws to be made up of Palestinian citizens.

If a Palestinian citizen is harmed by a crime committed by an Israeli as defined by Israeli law, the Palestinian government may appoint a prosecutor to prosecute that crime in Israeli courts.

Prisoner Exchange. On a rolling basis, the Palestinian and Israeli government shall provide for the exchange of prisoners that both governments agree qualify for clemency and no longer pose a threat to public safety.

Border Enforcement

Borders shall be established between the Territories of Palestine and Israel that shall be guarded on each side solely by the police forces of each country.

 Active-duty military personnel may not perform law enforcement duties along such borders.

No individual may cross the border without submitting to inspection by either government.

No individual may cross the border with any goods that either government prohibits being carried across the border.

Weapons Inspection

The Palestinian and Israeli governments shall disclose to the other the locations of all military facilities and shall permit the inspection of those facilities by the United Nations on annual basis.

All inspectors appointed by the United Nations will be permitted to travel freely through the lands controlled by each government and shall be given access to any facilities functionally controlled by either government upon request.

Taxes

Each government has the exclusive right to collect payroll and income taxes from its own citizens within the Territory either control.

Otherwise, each government has the exclusive right to tax transactions and property within its own Territory.

Each government will establish taxation sufficient to meet its obligations under this agreement.

Healthcare and Education

Each government shall provide free childcare for all of its citizens under the age of five(5); free, compulsory education to all of its citizens above the ages of four (4) and below the age of eighteen (18); free higher education to all citizens over the age of seventeen (17) who are interested in and capable of completing it; and access to affordable health care to all its citizens.

Environment and Safety

Each government will regulate and tax activities in the Territory it controls to reasonably prevent any known risks to human and environmental health and safety.

Each government will provide fire prevention and emergency medical services for all persons and property in the Territory it controls.

Employment Regulations

Each government will require employers under their jurisdiction including themselves to provide workplaces to their employees that are free from unreasonable dangers.

Each government will provide its own citizens with workers' compensation insurance for any injuries sustained in the workplace and may charge employers in the Territory it controls compulsory premiums reasonably calculated to compensate for such harms and prevent any such injuries.

[interwebsfamous]

A New International Currency

The BRICS nations are interested in creating a new international currency that permits cross border transactions without reliance on the dollar. The benefits of the dollar are as follows:

1) It is freely convertible without capital controls, unlike many currencies like the yuan or the ruble. 2) Its central bank, the U.S. Federal Reserve, has a statutory mandate to control monetary supply to keep dollar inflation within a safe range (≈ 2-4%) and the U.S. at full employment (≈ 4-6% unemployment), as opposed to the People’s Bank of China, who keeps the value of Chinese exports low. 3) It can be used for any and all transactions in the largest economy in the world. 4) It is backed by the full faith and credit of the richest government in the world. 5) It is issued by a quasi-democratic country that has mechanisms for ensuring transparency related to its monetary supply. However, a BRICS currency is not a terrible idea. Here’s my suggestion for how to establish an alternative to the dollar for whatever nations might want it. 1) Location 

1a) Locate the main central reserve bank in a relatively neutral, wealthy country, say the United Arab Emirates. 1b) For each sponsoring government that signs the treaty governing the reserve bank, locate at least one reserve bank branch in that country and an additional branch for each 100 million residents of that country if it has a population above 100 million.

2) Governance

2a) Create a board that is appointed by all sponsoring governments, with one vote for each sponsoring government. 2b) The Board will chose a governor for each reserve bank branch for a single four-year term at any given branch based on ranked choice voting from at least three nominees nominated by the sponsoring country where that reserve bank branch is located. 2c) The governors will choose a former governor by ranked choice voting to serve as the president of the central reserve bank for a single four-year term. 2d) The Board will choose a former governor by ranked choice voting to serve as the Auditor of the central reserve bank for a single four-year term.

3) Audit

3a) Require each sponsoring government to conduct an audit of the same number of reserve bank branches in other sponsoring countries as there are reserve bank branches in that sponsoring country. 3b) Prohibit each sovereign government from auditing or interfering in the operations of the reserve bank branch in its own country. 3c) The Auditor will set a schedule for audits of reserve bank branches by sponsoring governments that will not permit audits of reserve bank branches by sponsoring governments that have territorial disputes with or active hostilities against the country in which those reserve bank branches are located. 3d) The Auditor will hire an independent accounting firm to audit the central reserve bank and will receive and publish all of the audits conducted by each sponsoring government. 3e) The Auditor will hire an independent accounting firm to conduct audits of any reserve bank branches for which another sponsoring country is unavailable to audit and will charge all the other sponsoring countries for the audit on a per capita population basis. 4) Deposits

4a) Permit any resident of a country or government to deposit the sovereign currency of any other sponsoring countries or listed precious metals in any reserve bank branch in their country. 4b) Prohibit citizens or governments from depositing their own sovereign currency in the central reserve bank or any reserve bank branches, except when conducting a documented transaction with a party using the sovereign currency of another sponsoring government and the party is seeking to convert their local sovereign currency into the sovereign currency of another sponsoring government. 4c) Prohibit anyone from depositing the sovereign currency of the country in which a reserve bank branch is located in that reserve bank branch. 4d) Create an account for each depositor that measures their deposit in milligrams of gold based on the average ratio in market price between gold and that sovereign currency or listed reserve metal from the past year, i.e. the scheduled price. 4e) On a quarterly basis, require each sponsoring government to redeem its own currency with the currencies of other sponsoring governments or listed reserve metals and including the same amount of gold withdrawn by the citizens of that country in the previous quarter.

5) Withdrawals

5a) Permit any individual depositor to withdraw up to 10 grams of gold in any calendar year, if that individual depositor has held an account for over a year. 5b) Otherwise allow unlimited withdrawals in reserve certificates in denominations of 1, 2, and 5 in milligrams, centigrams, decigrams, and grams of gold. 5c) Permit unlimited purchases of other listed reserve metals from the reserve bank with those reserve certificates based on that listed reserve metal’s market price, if above the scheduled price, or at the scheduled price, if above the market price. 5d) Do not permit the issuance of reserve certificates except in exchange for deposits or in payment for bonds issued by the reserve bank.

6) Bonds

6a) Establish interest rates designed to keep inflation of reserve certificates between 2-4%. 6b) Sell bonds to any investor that can be purchased with reserve certificates or listed reserve metals at the scheduled prices and are redeemed by the reserve bank with reserve certificates.

7) Legal Tender

7a) Require all sponsoring countries to accept reserve certificates as lawful tender for any and all transactions public or private. 7b) Authorize the minting of coins in denominations of 1, 2, and 5 milligrams of gold made of metals that are roughly equal to those amounts. 7c) Authorize the printing of paper reserve certificates in the denominations of 1, 2, and 5 in centigrams, decigrams, and grams of gold. 7d) Authorize the minting of coins and bullion in all listed reserve metals in denominations of 1, 2, and 5 dekagrams, hectograms, and kilograms. 8) Loans

8a) Permit lending to a party who is trying to import a good or service between two countries with sponsoring governments. 8b) Such loans should be denominated in gold at market interest rates and payable in reserve certificates or listed reserve metals. 9) Bank Insolvencies

9a) The reserve bank shall always offer a bid to purchase any insolvent bank in a sponsoring country at the value of guaranteeing the full value of individual depositors accounts.

[interwebsfamous]

Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge are Wrong About Teens and Social Media

Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge are both excellent social scientists and writers. I have gotten great enjoyment and insight about the human experience from their popular books. However, they are both wrong about social media use causing an increase in depression and anxiety in teens. There are a number of important facts that the two downplay or ignore:

1) In 2010, the ACA (Obamacare) required insurance companies to provide coverage for mental healthcare on the same basis as all other types of healthcare, making it easier to access.

2) In the same time period, seeking mental health care became destigmatized, meaning that opinions about people who sought such care became less negative and more positive.

3) In the same time period, more teens became gun owners. Gun ownership is a risk factor for suicide.

4) It appears that depression and anxiety cause greater social media use. In fact, it is possible that social media use might serve as a temporary salve for such conditions. This is a good time to remind everyone that correlation is not causation. Also causation can run either or both directions between correlated phenomena.

The argument that there are no other valid explanations for why teen mental health has “gotten worse” assumes that mental health has gotten worse. Just because something is reported more frequently, does not mean that thing has increased in frequency. It is reasonable to assume that people would be less likely to report anxiety or depression if they would suffer negative social consequences from doing so. Any serious study of history should make it clear that people before our modern era were replete with undiagnosed mental illnesses.

Similarly, hospital admissions for self-harm would logically increase if people were less worried about the social consequences of reporting a child’s self-harming behavior. Just because people do not seek medical care for their child does not mean the child lacks that underlying condition.

That said, the suicide rate is something that is less likely to be affected by reporting biases since every discovery of a deceased person is likely to involve the authorities. However, the dramatic increase in gun ownership and access is probably sufficient to explain the increase in teen suicides.

The real solution to the problem Haidt and Twenge have actually identified is gun control. Social media use may also offer some benefits for teen mental health. Therefore, any proposed restrictions on access to social media may actually make the problem worse rather than better.

[interwebsfamous]

What Is Owed

I recently caught up with an old friend’s musings, when he published an essay about Rod Dreher in Slate. He is a friend from a time when I had very sincere and deep Christian metaphysical beliefs. I used to work very hard to protect these beliefs from the constant doubts and anxieties of the biochemistry of my own overly rational brain. Giving up my religious beliefs was one of the most unpleasant and uncomfortable things I have ever done. However, it has given me the peace and understanding that Christianity always promised, yet failed to deliver.

I turned to the Unitarian Universalist tradition as a place to safely detoxify from theism. That tradition gave me an affirmation that helped me find peace with myself. This is the idea that I am simply a human being subject to the normal limitations of my species. I am not fundamentally flawed or sinful. I am simply the normal amount of bad and good that gets crammed into the bodies that evolved from my hominid lineage.

In fact, I have since come to understand everything, including ideas of bad and good, as contingent, i.e., totally dependent on the sum total of their context.  Buddhists may recognize this principle as sunyata, i.e., the principle of emptiness. This is the idea that nothing can be absolutely true since everything is connected and depends on everything else for an explanation. As Hamlet told us, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” The truth is that badness and goodness are ideas that arise out of our own minds. As a product of biochemistry, these ideas are defined by the evolutionary pressure on members of our species to persist and replicate.  

However, there is another key truth that I have clung to. I made this realization after reflecting on an apologetic I heard in my religious days that always rang hollow. This argument is usually presented along the following lines. Since humans crave moral truth, an explanation for the universe that fails to provide moral truth is inherently incomplete. The terse rebuttal that my brain formed more than a decade later has become a mantra of mine. “The Universe does not owe me an explanation.”

The essence of this observation is that our desire for a universe that coheres or has meaning is simply a desire. As Mother Goose taught us, “If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.” I could continue standing by the roadside of the universe with a sign that says, “Will work for sense of purpose.” Otherwise, I could simply accept that what I want I may not be able to have. 

A sense of purpose is often described as a fundamental human need by many, including Rod Dreher himself. However, I can always make my sense of purpose myself. The older I have gotten, the more I have embraced the idea that doing nothing is always an option. Doing nothing may have received a bad reputation over the course of human civilization. However, if you look harder, you can find places it is enshrined in our collective moral traditions. Taoists might recognize this principle as wu wei, i.e., the principle of non-action. The principle may take its most famous form in Hippocrates’ admonition to do no harm. However, In a quasi-inverse form, Napoleon is alleged to have said, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” 

Also, I truly believe that the most harmful and dangerous people are those who are convinced that they have absolutely correct moral answers. Rod Dreher’s vicious homophobia and transphobia are a perfect example of the dangers of moral certitude. That said, imagine how much money we spend on insurance adjusters to deny ourselves access to healthcare. We do this to ourselves even when we could just embrace universal government care at a fraction of the price most of us pay for an ever-declining quality of care. 

As a recovering alcoholic, I can certainly see that my desire for love and acceptance is perfectly healthy and adaptive, but filling my perceived lack of love and acceptance with alcohol is deleterious and dangerous. In a manner comparable to the opioid crisis, embracing white Christian nationalism is literally killing its most fervent adherents. I don’t have to have any absolute answers about right and wrong to recognize that as a bad. In fact, recognizing that as bad, but not absolutely so, helps me understand that white Christian nationalists will not accept help until they are ready to do so on their own terms. This is just as it was with my own addictions.

I do think that Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic (W.E.I.R.D.) societies have gone too far in suggesting that no one owes anyone else anything. We are regularly told that if something or someone is too unpleasant or inconvenient, we should simply abandon it or them. This is a recipe for leaving ourselves bereft of the rich social relationships necessary for our well-being. However, recognizing that no one owes us anything may also help us to refocus our own efforts in avoiding harm and learning compassion.

[interwebsfamous]

The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled

It’s convincing us that we can easily know the difference between good and evil.

“And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.’ “ Genesis 2:16-17

In Genesis 2:16-17, God tells Adam, but not Eve, that there is a tree in the Garden of Eden called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God indicates that if Adam eats the fruit, it will cause his death. For the purposes of my analysis, I do not think it really matters whether God, this specific tree, Adam, or anything else from the Bible literally exist. Remember that in Hebrew Adam’s name simply means “the human,” and Eve’s name means, “life-giver,” or “the living one.”

However, God does not tell Adam why this tree exists or whether Adam would die anyways if he does NOT eat the fruit from this tree. Since Adam lived to be 930 years old, according to Genesis 5:3-5, he appears to have had a pretty good run. Maybe Adam would have made it to 931 if he had NOT eaten the forbidden fruit. That said, neither the character of God nor the narrator of the story tells us these details.

However, in Genesis 3 the snake has some thoughts. The snake tells Eve several things about the forbidden fruit. First, in response to Eve’s concern about the deadly character of the apple, in Genesis 3:4 the snake assures Eve that the apple will not cause her death. Then the snake makes a curious allegation about the reason behind God’s prohibition in Genesis 3:5: “For God knows that when you eat from [the fruit] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

This is new information in the text. Although God named the tree as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God did not suggest that eating its fruit would give one the knowledge of good and evil. God doesn’t even suggest that Godself possesses such knowledge. God only knows that eating from its fruit will lead to death. Note that the Hebrew Bible never describes anyone, even Godself, as “immortal” or “undying.”

Proverbs 12:28 tells us, “In the way of righteousness there is life; along that path is immortality.” However, it does not specify whether it is referring to a poetic immortality of human memory or a literal immortality of body or soul. That said, this is the only reference to immortality in the Hebrew bible.

In ancient Mediterranean mythology, gods could certainly die. Osiris and Adonis both died. Their partners’ grief was so real that the partners discovered a way to resurrect the deceased gods’ physical bodies. According to the ancient Ugaritic texts, Mot, the Canaanite god of death, killed Ba’al, the son of El. El’s name simply means “God.” (A similar name is given to the deity in the first chapters of Genesis, Yahweh Elohim.) Ba’al is later resurrected, generally due to some intervention on El’s part. Mot is, himself, killed in some versions.

Maybe God suggests to Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because Godself has learned not to eat from that tree. Maybe the snake, who is lying about something, is misinforming Eve about the extent of God’s knowledge of good and evil.

Believing one knows the difference between good and evil is the cause of all sorts of evil. Note that greed, covetousness, or desire are, at their essence, a belief about what is good or bad for a person. If I lack a billion dollars, I am only greedy if I think it would be good for me to have a billion dollars. As the Buddha taught us, desire is the root of all suffering. As Paul teaches us, the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. As Jesus taught us, it is easier for a camel to pass through a literal eye of a needle than for a rich man to be included in the kingdom of heaven.

Believing that you know what is good or bad for you also often leads you to think you know what is good and bad for others. Consider all of the people who have been rounded up and put in camps or prisons by others for simply living their lives they way they thought or were taught was best. The only thing more dangerous than thinking you know what is best for yourself is thinking that you know what’s best for others.

Every real villain thinks that they are doing what is right. A dogmatic capitalist may think that by earning obscene amounts of money, they are motivating poorer people to do the same. A gangster might believe that they are killing and torturing people who themselves have committed serious crimes. A pastor who runs a gay conversion camp usually believes they are saving souls from eternal damnation. A communist who oversees a famine or genocide believes they are waging war against the oppressive ruling class and other class traitors.

Thinking that you, personally, can easily separate right from wrong is the thing that is most likely to cause you to abuse your family, steal from people who trust you, commit acts of violence, and disregard the needs and wants of others. Living in harmony within your community requires you to suspend your moral judgments to the extent you are capable. As Jesus himself said in Matthew 7:2, “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

The path towards living in harmony with others requires you to ask the following difficult questions, like: 

Can I ask myself to do the things I am asking from others? 

Do others value the same things that I do? 

What am I willing to give up? 

What can I not do without?

The path of justice is winding, because the belief one knows the difference between good and evil leads to destruction. Living in harmony with our fellow humans requires us to reject preconceived notions about good and bad behavior. It demands that we first judge ourselves by those standards we would apply to others. That said, we are not expected to totally abandon our own perceived needs and wants.

In Genesis 3:10, the first sign God notices that Adam has formed beliefs about right and wrong is when he told God he was hiding his own nakedness. God, let alone Adam or Eve, had never once been bothered by Adam or Eve’s nakedness. God lets the snake, Adam, and Eve know that believing they know the difference between right and wrong will lead them to a world of woe and suffering. However, the next thing God did was to made clothes for Adam and Eve, because God knew they were uncomfortable being naked.

[interwebsfamous]

Going From Is to Should

Although hubris always invites nemesis, I would like to take on a project that moral philosophy has long declared impossible. That is, I would like to argue that one can reason out to what one “should” do from what “is.” If I am wrong, I invite whatever gods I have offended to strike me down where I sit. *checks self. is still alive. continues to write.*

While I do not think any premises below can be proven absolutely, they can be observed. If these premises conflict with my observational experiences, then this would invalidate the argument as a whole.

Premise A1) I have experiences. 

Premise A2) I experience others having experiences.

Premise B1) My memories of my experiences do not always agree with the memories others have of those experiences. Premise B2) My memories of my experiences do not always agree with records I or others make of those experiences. Premise C) Others have experimentally observed that the same experience does not occur in the same manner for two different sets of observers, with both sets of observers having equal claim to having witnessed something real. See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/ Argument I) Experience is all there is. As DesCartes demonstrated, my experience of having experiences is something that incontrovertibly exists. However, as no single observer can claim to have a superior vantage point over any other, my experiences are just as real as anyone else’s. I cannot know that others’ experiences are any less real than mine. Premise D) I experience desire. I experience others experiencing desire.

Argument II. Outside of my observable experience, I cannot know which desires of my own or of others are more noble, valuable, or good. Additionally, outside of my observable experience, I cannot know which desires of my own or of others are base, worthless, or bad. I cannot know that desire itself is absolutely good or bad. All I can know about desire is that a desire itself is the only knowable justification for its own fulfillment.

Premise E1) I experience that fulfilling some of my desires prevents me from fulfilling other of my own desires.

Premise E2) I experience that others fulfilling their own desires prevents them from fulfilling other of their own desires.

Premise F1) I experience that fulfilling some of my desires prevents others from fulfilling their own desires. 

Premise F2) I experience that others fulfilling their own desires prevents the fulfillment of my own desires.

Premise G1) I experience that a certain identifiable subset of my own and others’ desires are more detrimental to my own and others’ ability to fulfill their other desires. Premise G2) I find that agreeing with others to give up the pursuit of certain desires allows myself and others to fulfill more of our desires.

Argument III. I can only rank the value of desires to the extent they permit or facilitate the fulfillment of other desires. Even if my experiencing self is all that exists, my experiencing self can fulfill more of my own self-justifying desires if my experiencing self gives up on the pursuit of an identifiable subset of my own desires. Therefore, from a purely selfish perspective, based on my own experiences, agreeing to identify and prohibit the fulfillment of a certain subset of desires is something I can learn to desire to fulfill a greater number of my own desires.  Argument IV. Therefore, practical morality consists of setting up and enforcing a series of rules that permit me and others to fulfill our desires. The fulfillment of desire is what justifies those rules. Therefore, those rules are of secondary, not primary importance, and carry no absolute justification. If I discover that those rules are actually inhibiting the fulfillment of desires more than they are facilitating such fulfillment, I can learn to want to change the rules to fulfill a greater number of my own desires.

[interwebsfamous]

A New Voting Rights Act

If the Democrats keep their majority in the House (which is a big if, but still possible) and get enough seats in the Senate to abolish the filibuster, the first item of business, after abolishing the filibuster, should be protecting the right to vote and expanding democracy. Here are some of the items I think should be in the bill:

1) As authorized by the 14th, 19th, and 26th Amendment, establish an individual federal statutory right to vote for every citizen over the age of 17 that cannot be infringed upon except with regulations that are narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in free, fair, and secure elections. Create a private right of action for any voter to sue for denial of these rights under color of state law.

2) Require every state’s representatives in the House to be elected at large from that state and for their seats to be apportioned either by party to the recipients of the largest sums of votes from that party or in an open primary to the recipients of the largest sums of votes from the entire state.

3) Allow the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to fluctuate, but to never drop below seven. Permit a President to make an appointment to the supreme court in only the following circumstances:

a) The sitting President may appoint an equal number of justices to those appointed by a President in a term served after winning the electoral college, but not winning the popular vote. (This would currently be three appointments.)

b) A President may appoint one justice to the Supreme Court after one year in office in a term after receiving the most votes cast for President. 

c) A President may appoint one additional justice to the Supreme Court after three years in office in a term after receiving a majority of votes cast for President.

d) Any President may appoint a further additional justice if there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court that would cause the Court to have fewer than seven justices.

e) If a President is replaced during a term without making an appointment as authorized in these five sections, the President’s successor may make such an appointment.

4) Authorize the legislatures of Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, and American Samoa to hold a binding referendum on applying for Statehood under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1.

[interwebsfamous]

A Radical Re-Reading of Romans 1:18-32

I want to do an exegesis of Romans 1:18-32. This verse is usually interpreted as a condemnation of the queer community. As a person who thinks that queer folks are equal in human dignity to all other human beings, I do not share that interpretation. I also think that those who believe that Christianity requires them to mistreat anyone based on their sexual or gender identity, orientation, or expression are wrong.

I think this passage in Romans has a pretty clear meaning that has nothing to do with queer people, or at least nothing condemnatory. Instead, I think this passage has a message about contemporary white American Christians. Since I can read Koine Greek (the original language of this passage), my understanding of this passage is based on its original text, as best as that can be reconstructed. That said, I am not convinced that this passage was included in the original text of the letter to the Romans as written by Paul.

Either way, I would like to review this passage sentence by sentence.

Romans 1:18-19: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

In most Christian and some Jewish traditions, the Book of Sirach is considered to be a canonical part of the Bible. This book was written by a Jewish scholar in the second century BCE. I would suggest a parallel in this passage to Sirach 38:4-8. That text states, “The Lord created medicines from the earth, and a sensible person will not hesitate to use them. Didn't a tree once make bitter water fit to drink, so that the Lord's power might be known? He gave medical knowledge to human beings, so that we would praise him for the miracles he performs. The druggist mixes these medicines, and the doctor will use them to cure diseases and ease pain. There is no end to the activities of the Lord, who gives health to the people of the world.”

This observation need not be canonical to make biblical sense. It should proceed logically from a belief that God created the world. As James 1:17 notes, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.”

In the Bible, Jesus demands that we care for each other radically. In the story of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus preaches that there is eternal punishment for those who do not care for the least valued people among us when they are sick. Those who suggest we should not worry about infectious disease because it only poses a risk to weaker populations are ignoring this explicit instruction. According to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:22, such an attitude of dismissiveness is tantamount to murder

Not caring about spreading infectious disease is wickedness. However, Donald Trump taught us to ignore the evidence of our eyes and ears. He told us on July 25, 2018, “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” Donald Trump openly admitted that he ignored what his top medical advisors suggested he do about the coronavirus pandemic.

Romans 1:20: For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

The author of the text goes further to tell us that by observing and studying the world, we can understand God’s power and divinity. This further supports an understanding that God created human medicine for our benefit. As James 1:17 notes, the divine power of God does not change like shifting shadows. Therefore, medicine and science based on observation and evidence allow us to reveal ways to fulfill the Biblical command to care for the sick.

We know that our well-being is paramount and is so important that it can override a biblical commandment. In Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-28, and Luke 6:1-5, Jesus defends his disciples for picking grain on the Sabbath. This is not a violation of some obscure Sabbath rule promulgated by the Pharisees, but is an action that would be well understood by any contemporary observers as the kind of labor on a Sabbath prohibited by the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15.

However, Jesus notes in Mark 2:27 that this Biblical command does not exist for God’s benefit, but for the benefit of humans. Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath.” Note that in Mark 2:27, Jesus is reported as using the word “anthropos” meaning “human” as opposed to “aner” or “andros” meaning a man.

A consistent theme in the New Testament is that caring about our fellow humans is far more important than the correct understanding of scripture. As Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 13, love for others is far more important than preaching, prophecy, or scriptural interpretation.

Romans 1:21: For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

As we get deeper into this text, we learn more about this group of people. This group of people is described as knowing about God, but not recognizing his dignity. The Greek root “-dox-“ refers to dignity and respect and the word “edoxasan” means recognizing this dignity in someone else. This group is not thankful to God for what the Bible teaches that God has provided them. This group of people is religious, but their religion is self-centered rather than outwardly focused. They reject what they should already know God’s power and his gifts. As we have seen earlier, the Bible teaches that God has given humans our ability of observation and science so that we can care for the sick and cure illnesses. The understanding of the people in this passage is so misdirected that they have become unable to use logic (“emataiothesan en tois dialogismois”) in order to be compassionate to others.

Consider the criticism in some quarters of competent medical professionals, interventions, and treatments, particularly with regard to the coronavirus. This disregard for simple interventions like wearing masks or getting vaccinated has resulted in mass death from infectious disease that hasn’t been seen in the lives of most of the people alive in this country.

Romans 1:22: Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

The next thing we have learned about this group is that they sincerely believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. They are unwilling to listen to criticism or look outside themselves for understanding. As Proverbs 3:5 states “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.” This group of people scorns true knowledge and those who have it. This group reinforces their own error by their own unwillingness to listen.

Many prominent Evangelical Christian leaders unequivocally condemned Trump. Russell Moore, a prominent Southern Baptist leader and public ethicist who is strongly anti-abortion and pro-capitalist, has consistently routinely condemned Donald Trump. Best-selling author and Evangelical Pastor Max Lucado strongly and unequivocally condemned Trump in 2016. Beth Moore, no relation to Russell, a prominent Evangelical Bible teacher, cut ties with the Southern Baptist church over their support for Trump. There are many others.

Many prominent political conservatives have denounced Trump. There are so many, that Wikipedia created a page just to track them. Republican Senator Mitt Romney and former Republican Presidential nominee voted to remove Trump from the office for his actions regarding Ukraine. Seven Republican Senators voted to prohibit Trump from ever running for the Presidency again based on the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

Yet support for Trump remains strong among White Evangelicals.

Romans 1:23: and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Trump fans brought a “golden” statue of Donald Trump to the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2021. Trump’s campaign appears to have use the Nazi eagle in campaign swag. The Gadsden flag with its defiant snake has become a symbol for Donald Trump’s supporters. Donald Trump retweeted images of his head as a his head photosphopped on Rocky's body. A popular image of Trump riding a tank was displayed by a Trump supporter who mailed pipe bombs to politicians who oppose Trump. Also, one can purchase a thin blue line flag with a Chihuahua in front of a cross to decorate your house.

Romans 1:24: Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

A better reading of this verse is “So, God handed them over to the whims of their own hearts to degrade their bodies with each other in shameful ways.”

This is the only verse in this passage that uses a word that is frequently understood to be sexual in nature, i.e. “epithymiais,” but which can also be understood as a general desire. However, consider the Trump supporters who glorified in Trump’s sexual assaults. Trump fans wore shirts suggesting that Trump could grab them by their sexual organs. Consider the glorification of Trump’s hypersexuality and his infidelity to all three of his spouses.

Alternatively, consider the degradation of bodies by recklessness with a pandemic. Herman Cain attended a Trump rally where virtually no one wore a mask, contracted coronavirus, and died shortly thereafter. Currently, there are outbreaks of coronavirus in rural areas of America that supported Trump, particularly the Ozarks, where people are needlessly dying. More than 99% of the deaths are among the unvaccinated. Yet still large numbers of people in those areas refuse to get vaccinated or wear a mask to protect their fellow humans.

Romans 1:25a: They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, …

As noted above, this group of people has rejected what scripture identifies as God’s revelation of medicine and science. They have rejected reason. Their hearts (“kardia”) mentioned in verses 21 and 24, the traditional Greek center of the emotions, have turned inward and ignored the reality of the experience of others around them.

Many Republicans have stood up and affirmed that the 2020 election was free and fair. Attorney General William Barr called Trump’s election fraud claims, “bullshit.” Trump’s head for election security, Christopher Krebs, affirmed the same thing. Republican Governors and election officials in Arizona and Georgia acknowledged and certified the Biden won the 2020 election in their states, after thoroughly investigating claims of fraud.

Romans 1:25b: … and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Note that in the Trumpist world, Trump’s wealth is a primary argument for his leadership capabilities. In reality, Trump squandered most of his inheritance like the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-13. Instead of repenting of his sins like the prodigal son does in Luke 15:17-21, Trump declared that he does not have to ask God for forgiveness. He first made this declaration on July 18, 2015. Almost six months later, Trump was given an opportunity to clarify this remark, and he maintained his position that he need not ask for forgiveness. As 1 John 1:8 states, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”

However, Trump’s goodness as a person was never his appeal. On NPR on October 16, 2016, Prominent Evangelical Pastor Robert Jeffress explicitly made the argument that the values of the Bible as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount should be ignored when it comes to our politics and our government. Pastor Jeffress does not cite scripture for this argument, but merely his own understanding. Pastor Jeffress argues “I want the meanest, toughest SOB I can find to protect this nation.”

Jesus repeatedly admonishes that those who seek to be a leader should act humbly. In Mark 9:35, Jesus tells his disciples that “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” In Matthew 18:1-4, Jesus says that “whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” In Mark 10:43-44, Jesus says, “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.” In Luke 22:26, at the last supper, Jesus says, “the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.”

Trump falsely claimed to have created the greatest economy in history before the coronavirus. When he was running for President on May 26, 2016, Trump said, “We’re going to make America wealthy again. You have to be wealthy in order to be great, I’m sorry to say.” In Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25, Jesus preached, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus also preached in Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 that “You cannot serve both God and money.”

Romans 1:26a: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

My proposed reading is, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameless feelings.”

Note that the word that is translated as lust is “pathe,” which is a more of neutral Greek term for feelings. On its own it is not explicitly sexual. The word translated as “shameful” is “atimias.” The Greek prefix “a-” is equivalent to the English suffix “-less.” The root “-tim-” in Greek refers to honor, i.e., paying due respect to others. Feelings lacking honor are just as easily, if not better, understood as feelings that lack respect for the existence of others. Shame is a feeling that we have disappointed those we care about and those we love. Shamelessness indicates an inability to understand the implications of our actions and its effects on others. For instance, an unwillingness or inability to understand that wearing a mask or getting vaccinated is an act of care and concern for others.

Romans 1:26b: Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

My proposed reading for this passage is “Even the feminine members of this group changed their normal interactions into those that weren’t normal.”

In both verses 26 and 27, there is no word in the Greek text that explicitly refers to sex or the sex act. The word that is used in both is “chresin,” which is better translated and understood in most contexts as “interaction.” In both verses 1:26 and 1:27 the word “physiken” is frequently translated as “natural.” However, I think the modern English word “normal” provides a better translation of the meaning here. The English word “normal” refers to how things are socially expected to be, because of the way those things came to be. Therefore, I think a better translation of “physiken chresin,” is “normal interactions,” rather than “natural relations” of a sexual or other nature.

Also, both verses 26 and 27 use adjectives meaning masculine (“arsenes”) and feminine (“theleiai”) as opposed to the standard noun for men (“androi”) and women (“gynaikai”). In Koine Greek, like other world languages, adjectives can be used without a noun, and they are understood to refer to all the people or things that can be described by that adjective. The use of these adjectives as nouns underscores that the passage is talking about social understandings of masculinity and femininity and not biological sex.

This passage could be understood in the context of received prejudice that women are more sensitive than men to the impact of their actions. Therefore, this passage could be interpreted as suggesting that this lack of concern of the impact of one’s actions on others was so widespread, that it even impacted the feminine members of this community.

Romans 1:27a: In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

I would suggest reading this as, “In the same way as the feminine ones, the masculine members of this group gave up normal interactions and were inflamed with their own yearnings in front of each other.”

Once again, this passage used “physiken chresin” (normal interactions), “arsenes” (masculine people), and “theleiai” (feminine people). To understand this passage you have to understand that Greek, like many world languages, changes the ending of nouns to explain how those nouns fit in the sentence and relate to each other. We call those different forms “cases.” The word for feminine people here is “theleias,” which is in the accusative case. Usually the accusative case means the noun is the object of a verb. The only verbs or verbals in this sentence are “aphentes” meaning “giving up” or “exekauthesan,” meaning “were inflamed.” Gramatically “exekauthesan” cannot have an object, since it is passive voice. If you translated this passage as “giving up women,” then you have the object “physiken chresin” (“normal interactions”) which no longer fits into the sentence.

Traditionally, translators have assumed that the feminine people are the object of another noun, “normal interactions.” However, there is no preposition in the Greek connecting “physiken chresin” and “theleias.” Using the preposition “pros” in Koine Greek would be the normal way of making a noun like “chresin” (meaning “interactions”) connect with another noun to indict with whom the interaction was occurring.

Because Koine Greek and other languages change the endings of nouns, word order is far less important in those languages than in English. Therefore, I think the most sensical reading is to take the first word “homoios” meaning “in the same way” and attaching it to the word “theleias.” When “homoios” is combined with a noun in the accusative case, it can be translation as “in the same way as the noun in the accusative case.” Therefore, “homois … theleias” can be read as “in the same way as the women” and not as the object of the interactions that were given up.

The word that is translated as “lust” here is not “pathe” as in Romans 1:26a, but is “orexei,” which is a word that does not have a normal sexual connotation. Instead, “orexis” is best understood as a desire of any variety. The word “eis” can be translated a number of ways, and I think that understanding these yearnings as a type of expressive behavior makes it reasonable to translate it as “in front of.”

Christian religious scholar from Calvin University, Dr. Kristen Kobes Du Mez, recently published the book Jesus and John Wayne, which describes how an obsession with manliness conquered Evangelical Christianity in the last 75 years. Her theory is that Donald Trump represents the culmination of that movement and not an aberration from it.

To put it simply, maybe the people Romans 1:18-32 describes became obsessed with appearing masculine in front of other men. Maybe they wanted to signal their masculinity by carrying guns or driving cars that produce noxious odors or sounds. Maybe these men wanted to show their affinity for political groups that glorify violence. Maybe they wanted to signal their belief that they were not able to be infected with or suffer from a coronavirus.

Romans 1:27b: Men committed shameful acts with other men, …

I would suggest the reading of “Men committed senseless acts in front of other men.”

Once again, this verse uses the word “arsenes” (masculine people) instead of “androi” (men). Also, the word “en,” which is translated “with” can be better translated as “among” or “in a group of.” I also translate “aschemosyne” as “without a plan” or “lacking form,” instead of “shameful.” As I mentioned before, the Greek prefix “a-” is best understood as the English suffix “-less.” The Greek suffix “-syne” is best undersood as the English suffix “-ness.” Therefore, this word can be fairly well understood as “schemelessness,” which I read as “senseless acts.” These senseless acts could include refusing to wear a mask while a contagious respiratory disease is widespread. Such senseless acts could also include refusing to get an effective vaccine to prevent the transmission of such a disease. This is particularly senseless if it is simply intended to show one’s hypermasculinity.

Romans 1:27c: … and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I read this as, “They received the punishment that was coming for them for their mistake in their own bodies.”

Donald Trump himself got coronavirus. Herman Cain died from coronavirus. More than 99% of the people who are currently dying from coronavirus are unvaccinated. Coronavirus is raging out of control in areas of the country that predominantly supported Donald Trump.

Romans 1:28: Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

On January 6, 2021, Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol building to interfere with the certification of Joe Biden’s lawful election as U.S. President. This armed rebellion caused the death of a police officer and the deaths of several of their own number.

Romans 1:29a: They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.

Trump supporters stood by Trump as he intentionally separated mostly Christian infants and children from their parents. Trump supporters stood by Trump as he ignored his responsibilities to assist Puerto Ricans after Hurricane Maria. Trump supporters stood by as Trump massively increased the deaths of civilians in America’s various wars.

Trump was elected President after defrauding individuals with a fake University for more than $25 million. Trump stole nearly $2 million dollars from charities. Trump supporters stole more than $1 million from other Trump supporters that was to be donated to building a wall with Mexico. Trump had the federal government pay his own businesses $2.5 million for the privilege of protecting and employing President Trump. Trump paid his own businesses $17 million from campaign funds donated by supporters.

Romans 1:29b: They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.

ABC News found 54 documented cases of attempted murder, actual or attempted assault, and threats of violence in which the convicted person cited their support of Donald Trump as the reason for their crime. On January 6, 2021, Trump’s supporters came to the U.S. Capitol building armed with a wide variety of weapons, including firearms, and five people ended up dead and more than 140 were injured.

Romans 1:29c-30a: They are gossips, slanderers, …

Donald Trump has made an unprecedented number of false claims for a U.S. politician, with at least 30,000 documented falsehoods. Two of Donald Trump’s lawyers have been disbarred, Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani, both for telling falsehoods. Several Trump supporters including some of his lawyers are facing defamation lawsuits for their claims about the 2020 elections. Fox News settled a defamation case brought by the family of a 27-year-old Democratic campaign worker who was brutally murdered.

Romans 1:30b: … God-haters, …

Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that Joe Biden would be capable of hurting or destroying God. This is contrary to what the author of Romans claims in verse 20 that should be obvious about God’s power to any observer of the world in which we live. In Deuteronomy 32:25 and Romans 12:19, God says that he is capable of avenging himself, and he does not human help. In Job 38:4, God asks us, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?”

Romans 1:30c: … insolent, arrogant and boastful; …

Donald Trump claimed that he, by himself, was capable of solving all of America’s problems. Donald Trump routinely claimed that there are many subjects that he knows “more about than anybody.” Donald Trump falsely claimed responsibility for any number of achievements that he had little do with.

Romans 1:30d: … they invent ways of doing evil; …

Trump’s corruption was so vast, it is virtually impossible to catalog all of his misdeeds. There is no President in American history who was ever accused of such corruption and misdeeds. Before Trump, Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding were widely known as the most corrupt Presidents, mostly because of tolerating corruption in their cabinet. However, the two were not personally corrupt and were also ardent anti-racists. Andrew Jackson was the most genocidal president, but he was comparatively free of corruption for his time period. Millard Fillmore is widely understood as the least intelligent President before Trump, but he was not personally corrupt. James Buchanan is widely understood as one of the most ineffectual Presidents, but he did not attempt to cash in on his office either. Richard Nixon resigned over misconduct that would have barely made a dent in Trump’s regular coverage.

Romans 1:30e: … they disobey their parents; …

Donald Trump was born in 1946 at the beginning of the baby boomer generation. The baby boomers largely supported Donald Trump. The baby boomer generation systematically dismantled the prosperity and peace their parents handed them. The so-called “greatest generation” defeated Nazism and Fascism and established a peaceful and prosperous world. Donald Trump’s mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic crashed the economy and Trump praised the Nazis who marched in Charlottesville as “very fine people.”

Romans 1:31a: … they have no understanding, ...

Many of the people who worked for or with Donald Trump testified to his lack of personal intelligence.

Romans 1:31b: … no fidelity, ...

Donald Trump has betrayed almost everyone who has ever stuck their neck out to help him. He cheated on all three of his wives. He stiffed his investors with multiple bankruptcies. Trump supported the interests of a Russian dictator over his own democratically elected government. On January 6, 2021, Trump encouraged a mob of armed citizens to kill Vice President Mike Pence, who had embarrassed himself with his loyalty to Trump. Trump abandoned those very same armed citizens after the insurrection leaving them to be arrested and jailed for his vanity.

Romans 1:31c: … no love, ...

Trump put forward laws that encouraged discrimination against queer people in the workplace, schools, and in receiving medical care. Trump banned transgender Americans from the military. Trump has spent significant amounts of time insulting hundreds of people and organizations on Twitter. Trump has ignored and embarrassed his own children, particularly his namesake. Trump has cheated on all of his wives. Donald Trump has reveled in cruelty and abhorred kindness.

Romans 1:31d: … no mercy.

Donald Trump has enabled the worst, most violent, and most lawless tactics of law enforcement, particularly against black Americans. Trump encourage police to treat citizens with violence on shear suspicion of a violation of the law. Trump encouraged the military to engage in reprisal killings against the non-combatant families of the Islamic State.

Romans 1:32: Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Romans 6:23 teaches that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” In Galatians 3:10-14, it says, “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’[1] Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because ‘the righteous will live by faith.’[2] The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”[3] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.’[4] He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.”

Therefore, Trump supporters are ignoring the Biblical demand that they suffer damnation for their sins. As a person who does not believe in hell, I think any such punishment would be something akin to a punitive reincarnation cycle or a simple end to existence. However, in 1 John 1:8-10, it states, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.”

I think a reasonable interpretation of Romans 1:18-32 is that it is not about queer people at all, but rather that coronavirus is an example of God’s judgment against those who reject God’s gifts of reasoning, medicine, and science. If one takes the Biblical text seriously, one should take away the message that love is the guiding principle for its interpretation and paying attention to the truth of the world in which we live is a key principle. In fact, I think this passage suggests that ignoring concerns about infectious disease has real world consequences that function as God’s judgment.

Certainly, the queer community has long experience with being neglected while facing infectious disease. The lesson from the HIV epidemic is that giving resources and support to communities suffering from infectious disease is the most important part of a response. Supporting generous federal policies that pay for coronavirus vaccination and outreach and that give resources to businesses and communities to permit social distancing and mask-wearing is another important step.

However, what we also know is that criminalizing our neighbors because of their sexual orientation, gender expression, political identity, religious practices, or medical status leads to more suffering, not less. The Bible calls us to heed these lessons and to offer love and support for our neighbors, particularly when they are suffering. The Bible calls us to look for leaders who demonstrate humility, a willingness to change their minds, and a desire to serve others.

At this point, I think it is worth noting that the author of Romans 1:18-32 is putatively the same person who wrote in I Corinthians 13:5 that “[love] keeps no record of wrongs.” Both Romans 1:1 and I Corinthians 1:1 contain Paul’s signature. Most scholars believe that these two books are, in fact, the most likely of all Biblical letters to have been written by the historical Paul. The writer of Romans 1:18-32 is clearly not above keeping a record of wrongs about whomever this community is. Note that Jesus himself called the Pharisees “a brood of vipers” in Matthew 12:34 and Matthew 23:33. Jesus spends all of Matthew 23 listing the Pharisees’ record of wrongs. Yet Jesus is the one who taught us in Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36  to repay evil with good and to love our enemies.

These teachings need not be contradictory if we heed the advice in Romans 1:18-32 to take our cues from our observation of the world in which we live. Game theory is the mathematical study of human interaction. In lab result after lab result, cooperation is the ideal strategy in any structured interaction that has multiple iterations with the same partners. However, if one partners is being uncooperative, then game theory suggests that refuses to cooperate while offering to cooperate is the ideal strategy to ensure the best results for all players.

Our observation of the natural world teaches us that endlessly repaying evil for evil makes everyone worse off and sadder. However, neither the Bible nor our observation of the world teach us to naively cooperate without protest. What the Bible asks us to do is to make cooperation our normal response. However, both also teach us to clearly express our grievances and concerns with those who have hurt us. Consider Jesus teaching to confront those against whom you have anger in Matthew 5:23-25 and Matthew 18:15-20.

Finally, I wanted to go through this exercise to show that any time you condemn others, you condemn yourself. In Matthew 7:1-6 and Luke 6:37-42, Jesus preached that we will be judged by the standards with which we judge others. Many Evangelical Christians cite to Romans 1:18-32 to argue that queer people sin when they act outside of traditional gender roles. However, I hope you can now see that this passage is just as much an indictment of contemporary white American Christianity.

Let’s redouble our efforts to offer our political opponents (and allies) universal healthcare, criminal justice reform, acceptance, and compassion. Let us demonstrate the virtues that those around us lack. Let us be willing to be accused of signaling virtue by the shameless, so that by our actions we can show our love to others.

Amen.

[1] Deuteronomy 27:26.

[2] Habakkuk 2:4

[3] Leviticus 18:5

[4] Deuteronomy 21:23

[interwebsfamous]

Neo-liberalism

I’ve been having some debates with friends about whether neo-liberalism is a thing or not. I am firmly in the “or not” camp. However, I must concede that the word “neo-liberalism” has been in use since the 19th century, being introduced from the French as “neo-liberalisme.” So, I will concede that, throughout the last 200 years, people have at least argued that a thing called “neo-liberalism” does or should exist. Generally, any term that is solely created to critique a person, place, thing, etc. is not good evidence that the term itself reliably describes the object of its scorn. Terms of abuse are not useful when taken literally, and are simply part and parcel of organizing political coalitions. My argument is that, in its current form, “neo-liberalism” is simply a term of abuse for anyone perceived to be the political right of the speaker. However, I will concede that there were people in the past who argued for “neo-liberalism” as a positive and desirable political program. My contention is that there are essentially two groups of American political thinkers who chose to embrace the term “neo-liberalism,” but that those two groups of people were essentially using the term in a misleading and, therefore, unhelpful way. First, some important context on the etymology of the term “liberal.” In the 19th century, the term had a very different usage in the United States and Europe. The word “liberal” in American politics, tended towards its original Latin meaning of “generous,” and suggested an openness toward government intervention in the economy and society. As none of the American political parties developed an ideological response to government intervention in general, that term did not take on an ideological nature in politics. Rather in Europe, the French word “liberale” and the various corresponding Latinate loan words in European languages, quickly became associated with the Revolutionary movement in France. The word liberal quickly became associated with political and economic rights guaranteed by constitutional protections. 

The European liberals mostly saw the existing monarchical European states and imperial expanse as the biggest problem posed to individual liberties. Adam Smith wrote his book as an argument against mercantilism and European imperialism. Mills and others followed in this regard. Therefore, in Europe, “liberalism” came to mean a belief in laissez-faire capitalism with minimal state intervention in the economy. To avoid confusion, in the United States, we call this belief “classical liberalism.” In the late 19th century, the term “neo-liberalism” was applied to the beliefs of fascist economist Maffeo Pantaleoni. The term of abuse was meant to indicate that Pantaleoni actually believed in syndicalism, in which workers were organized into nationalist syndicates which controlled the corporations in which they worked. However, Charles Gide used the term “neo-liberalism” as a critique of Pantaleoni’s syndicalist beliefs from a classical liberal perspective.

The first group, historically, to promote the term “neo-liberalism” as a positive program were a group of European thinkers gathered at the Colloque Walter Lippman in 1938. This group was convened in the midst of the great depression and was confronted by the rise of dictators on both the right and the left in Europe. In this environment, Lippman and his associates proposed neo-liberalism as a moderately statist adjustment to classical liberalism to avoid the excesses of Nazism and Bolshevism. However, Lippman’s attempted moderation was roundly rejected by Hayek and Mises, the famous laissez-faire economists of the Austrian school. However, Lippman was describing the actual political ideology of “liberals” in the United States. His use of the prefix “neo” was probably a reference to the debate in Europe between the syndicalists and the classical liberals at the turn of the century, and indicated that Lippman felt that the classical liberals were the ones who needed to moderate. However, there was no need to add “neo” to this prefix for its usage in the United States, because there was absolutely nothing new about this liberalism. This was the liberalism found in the United States in both the Republican Progressive tradition and Democratic Party of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Therefore, the term “neo-liberalism” never needed to be introduced into the United States, because it simply described the mainstream of American liberalism. Socialists and Leftists in the United States continued to oppose liberalism on the grounds that it was seen as a bourgeois movement that blocked meaningful social change. However, at the same time, the Chicago school of Economics, led by Milton Freedman and inspired by Hayek and Mises, introduced the term “neo-liberal” to American political discussion to mean the exact opposite. The term “neo-liberal” in Europe had been invented to describe what Americans simply called “liberal.” However, Freedman used the term “neo-liberal” to refer to classical liberalism, or what the word “liberal” meant to Europeans. Therefore, the semantic relationship of the two terms became the exact inverse on either side of the Atlantic. Freedman’s use of the term to describe American politics was deeply duplicitous, because it was not a new version of “liberalism” globally, it was not what Americans recognized as “liberal,” and it was not what the term “neo-liberalism” in the academic literature had previously described. Freedman’s duplicitous use of the term allowed the term “neo-liberalism” to suffer from such semantic bloat that it ceased to be a meaningful term to describe a coherent set of ideals. However, unfortunately, political realignment in America soon caused the meaning to bloat even further. Also, Freedman’s movement was commonly described in America as “libertarianism,” a unique term referring to a unique and identifiable strain of political thought. Neither major political party in the United States was ideologically liberal or conservative until the 1960s. However, the passage of various civil rights laws radicalized white supremacists in the American South. Seeing an elective advantage, the Republican Party began to appeal to their illiberal sympathies, which caused those with liberal tendencies to defect to the Democratic Party. This meant that the Democratic Party became far more ideologically open to government intervention in the economy and society, ironically, an attitude that was in line with the original meaning of neo-liberalism. However, as the Republican Party gained white supremacist voters across the American South and began to enjoy electoral success, a group of mildly white supremacist thinkers on the political left began to argue for an embrace of “neo-liberalism.” This use of the term was as duplicitous as Freedman’s, because it was not arguing for anything new, it was simply arguing for a continuation of the market-based welfare state that excluded racial minorities that American liberals had pursued for the last century. It was an argument against the change in the Democratic Party toward a more democratic socialist stance along the lines of the Labour Party in Britain, the Social Democrats in Germany, and the Socialist Party in France. The election of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair under the banner of “third way liberalism” was itself deeply misleading. Third way liberalism was always the meaning of the term “liberalism” in the United States. Instead, the politicians who described themselves as “neo-liberal” or “third way liberals,” were actually just members of an unbroken tradition of American liberals dating back centuries. As the contemporary political left in the United States turns to embrace democratic socialism and reject classical liberalism, the term neo-liberalism, denuded of all meaning, merely serves as a cudgel to berate those on the political left or center deemed insufficiently committed to the ideological realignment. However, the lack of a widely agreed upon semantic range for neo-liberal movements makes the term “neo-liberalism” excellently adapted as a term of abuse, but mostly useless when discussing actual policies supported by various political factions. It’s wide-ranging use in the past to describe almost every ideology from fascist syndicalism; traditional American liberalism; libertarianism; and, occasionally, a garden variety willingness to reach political compromise, means that term is uniquely ill-suited for rehabilitation by any of these distinct ideological persuasions. Let us kill the word “neo-liberalism” so that the multiplicity of unique ideologies ascribed to it can be accurately described in the world of academic and political debate.

[interwebsfamous]

The Texas Revolution and the Mexican-American War Were About Slavery, Too

Or, why compromise couldn’t stop the Civil War After the Missouri compromise in 1820, several things became clear. Slavery would not be permitted in the vast majority of the landmass then controlled by the United States of America. The economy of the Deep South was deeply tied to slave labor. Also, the economy of the Upper South was deeply tied to exporting its slaves to the Deep South. To maintain its parity in the United States Senate, the Southern states looked beyond the current borders of their own country for future slave states. The United States successfully obtained Florida from Spain in 1821, after years of incursions into the territory to recover escaped slaves. However, later that year Mexico declared its independence from Spain. Newly independent Mexico began encouraging American immigration into Texas to help Europeanize a vast territory mostly inhabited by indigenous people. The influx of Anglo-American settlers into Texas caused the U.S. to offer to purchase it from Mexico in 1826 and 1827. Many of these Anglo-Americans were slave-owners. However, in 1829, Mexico’s first Black President, Vicente Guerrero, abolished slavery, giving the Americans a short adjustment period to free their slaves. Also, Guerrero, mostly unsuccessfully, attempted to discourage further American immigration into Mexico. These new policies caused the Anglo-American settlers to consider independence. However, the insertion of slavery into the issue caused the annexation of Texas to become a deeply partisan issue in the United States. Although he had formerly sought to purchase Texas from Mexico, John Quincy Adams opposed such a purchase after Guerrero put Texas on track for gradual abolition. However, the stage had been set for conflict between the Mexican central government and its far-flung provinces. General Santa Anna was initially a widely popular figure in Mexican politics, because he had ties to both the liberal and conservative wings of the Mexican independence movement. However, the governments he nominally controlled swung widely from left to right during his tenure, managing to alienate many different constituencies at once over time. This led to a mass uprising of Mexican borderlands in 1835 against the central government. Only Texas managed to maintain its independence, and in 1836 enshrined human bondage into its constitution. Texas hoped to be admitted to the United States as a slave state. However, this created a state of affairs that threatened to upset the Missouri Compromise, and the issue was tabled for a decade. In 1845, James K. Polk won the presidency on an expansionist platform and almost immediately formally annexed Texas to the United States. This resulted in a military showdown with Mexico. Most anti-slavery Whigs, including one freshman member of Congress, Abraham Lincoln, recognized this military conflict as an attempt to expand the institution of slavery beyond the limits established by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Abraham Lincoln boldly and passionately opposed the Mexican War on the principle that it sought to expand the institution of slavery. However, the young nation was primed for imperial adventure and conquest. A stunning and decisive American invasion of Mexico was completed in 1847. This resulted in the compelled cession of 529,000 square miles of formerly Mexican territory, opening up potentially vast new lands to the establishment of slave states. This was ultimately the issue that sparked the U.S. Civil War. Although the compromise of 1850 attempted to resolve these issues, it most decidedly did not. Merely four years later, slave states sought the admission of Kansas and Nebraska into the U.S. as slave states, even though, previous compromises had designated these territories to be free soil. Also, further filibustering adventures inspired by the conquest of Texas and California were inspired in the 1850s. The Knights of the Golden Circle sought to conquer the entire region surrounding the Gulf of Mexico and turn it into a slave-holding empire. This resulted in Anglo-American-led attempts to foment pro-U.S. revolutions in Baja California, Nicaragua, and Cuba. In response to Southern attempts to expand slavery, many Northern states attempted to use the doctrine of state’s rights to aggressively protect fugitive slaves who had fled into their jurisdiction, even though the Constitution at the time compelled states to return fugitive slaves to their masters. However, this issue was ultimately resolved to the liking of the slave states by the U.S. Supreme Court in both Dred Scott v. Sanford and Ableman v. Booth. The issue of whether slavery should be allowed in the newly conquered territories was the primary issue on which Abraham Lincoln campaigned. He was opposed to creating any new slave states in territories which currently did not permit slavery. Abraham Lincoln did not seek the gradual abolition of slavery and made pledges to protect slavery where it already existed. However, the election of Lincoln resulted in the secession of multiple Southern states. The leaders of the slave states failed to recognize that their Northern colleagues would be unwilling to negotiate under threat of armed insurrection. When the military forces of South Carolina took steps to resolve the dispute with force, the Civil War began in earnest. The leaders of the South, though, made it clear that they were fighting for the cause of white supremacy and the involuntary servitude of those of African ancestry. They did so in their resolutions on their causes for secession, and in the public statements of their leaders.

[interwebsfamous]

Unicorn Universal Health Care/No Extra Taxes/Minimal Disruption/Simple to Implement

Okay, Democrats! Take note. Here’s a proposal for “Medicare-for-all” that meets all objections. A) It doesn’t raise tax rates. B) It won’t take away all employer-sponsored insurance. C) It won’t require 4000 pages of legislative text. D) It can be passed through reconciliation. Step 1) Allow individuals to buy-in to Medicare with benefits as currently defined by law. Set an amount for a standard buy-in that fully covers the cost of buy-in recipients without regard to age, medical history, race, gender, or any other protected class.

Step 2) Set premiums as a percentage of that buy-in based on the decile of their household income. The top decile will pay 200% of the standard buy-in and the bottom decile, 0%. The second from top decile will pay 180%, and the second from bottom decile will pay 20%, with the percentages for each decile decreasing by 20% from top to bottom. 

Step 3) To make up revenue from wealthier individuals who do not participate in Medicare, eliminate the carried interest rule. Cap deductions for individuals at $50,000 or less. Eliminate Medicaid, except any services not offered by Medicare.

Step 4) Require employers: a) to offer sufficient and affordable healthcare (as defined currently by Obamacare) to all employees (not just full-time workers) OR b) to auto-enroll all employees in Medicare and withhold premiums along with FICA and FUTA.

Step 5) Fine employers who do not comply. Step 6) Allow employees to opt out of auto-enrollment in Medicare on their W-4 by affirmatively checking a box. Step 7) Require schools to auto-enroll students in Medicare to receive federal funds. Step 8) Allow students to opt out of auto-enrollment in Medicare by having their parents submit an opt-out in writing. Step 9) Require states to auto-enroll unemployment beneficiaries in Medicare to receive federal unemployment funds. Step 10) Allow unemployment beneficiaries to opt out of auto-enrollment in Medicare by submitting an opt-out in writing.

Step 11) Enjoy the benefits of Universal Health Care. 

[interwebsfamous]

My Review of Todd VanDerWerff’s Review of Kong: Skull Island. SPOILERS GALORE for both.

I went to see Kong: Skull Island this weekend and loved it. It was not the world’s greatest cinematic triumph. It wasn’t even the best movie I saw in the last two weeks, which was Logan. However, having sat through a significant amount of films about giant robots and/or monsters punching each other, I can say definitively, that it is at the height of the genre. So, it surprised me to read Todd VanDerWerff’s review of Kong: Skull Island this Monday.

VanDerWerff is someone whose work I have been reading since his days at the AV Club. I frequently agree with his takes and find his writing style to be clear and concise, yet almost luminous and lyrical in its artistic quality. What I mean to say is that VanDerWerff is one of the greatest journalistic writers working today. However, I had such an odd reaction to his review that it compelled me to write a review of his review.

I have recently been following Alex Jones on social media. It has given me the stereotypical insight into how the other side thinks. One of the things I’ve noticed is the number of takes Jones provides that are simply accurately describing something I would be pleased with or disappointed in and then providing the exact opposite emotional response. In that sense, and only that sense, VanDerWerff’s review struck me as oddly Alex Jonesian.

IF YOU READ FURTHER, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS! GIANT, END OF THE MOVIE TWIST-TYPE SPOILERS!

I don’t know what VanDerWerff was expecting from this movie, as he accurately lists movies that I would compare it too. He notes Gareth Edward’s Godzilla, which is vastly inferior to Edward’s movies Monsters and, of course, Rogue One. He also compares it to the previous King Kong films, particularly the 2005 remake, and Apocalypse Now. I think Kong: Skull Island compares favorably to all those movies.

VanDerWerff’s primary complaint is that this particular version of King Kong is not really faithful to the original story of King Kong. I’m not really sure why VanDerWerff makes this complaint. I’m sure that there are plenty of movies VanDerWerff has seen that he thought were improved by playing loose with the source material.

I absolutely loved the 2005 movie Kong. I have admittedly not seen the original 1933 film. However, the 2005 movie felt to me like it was about something, specifically, show business. In that movie, Kong was the pitied victim of the greed and voyeurism of the show business industry. Kong was a romantic lead in that movie. However, he was churned up and spit out by the modern entertainment industry.

What I’m saying is that this story has been told. We do not need another reboot or remake rehashing the details of King Kong’s rise and fall in 1930s Manhattan. We most certainly do not need yet another version of What About Eve, Gypsy, or Showgirls walking us through the rapacious apathy of the entertainment industry towards its subjects. Also, in terms of robots and/or monsters punching each other, we’re getting a Pacific Rim 2, Transformers Infinity?, a Power Rangers reboot, and whatever the Cloverfield monster is up to next. That genre is being fully exploited.

While I agree with VanDerWerff that the character of Kong was compelling in this movie, it is precisely because he does not get much screen time. The filmmakers wisely leave us wanting more. The glimpses we get of this monster are awe-inspiring. The scene where a downed American chopper pilot watches Kong take a drink from a lagoon was to me the most amazing use of special effects and a simulacrum of the normal laws of physics to both humanize and exaggerate a monster.

The biggest problem with movies about robots and/or monsters punching each other is that, by the third act, we frequently get bored of watching them fight. The traditional solution to this problem is to create even more ridiculous fight scenes involving even yet more preposterous monsters. What Kong: Skull Island did is that it told a relatable and thematically unified story about people that occasionally has fight scenes between monsters. The fact that this movie is holding back more details about Kong for inevitable sequels merely forced it to do better story-telling. Also, by showing us the corpses of Kong’s parents, we are reminded of both his mortality and his ultimate loneliness. Additionally, the final fight scene was really cool.

VanDerWerff, in fact, identifies the thematic unity of the movie in his review.

“Thus, Skull Island deliberately takes much of its central idea from perhaps the best Vietnam movie ever made: 1979’s Apocalypse Now. Like that movie, this one is about a long trip into the jungle to find a legendary figure…

“Jackson plays a very human monster, a man who gradually comes to be obsessed with having his revenge, which makes for a potentially intriguing flip of Apocalypse Now: Instead of having to find a monster in the jungle, what if the monster was in the search party all along?”

I would agree with everything VanDerWerff says here except for “potentially.” What he sees as a lost potential, I see as a potent retelling carrying a powerful critique of the original. The problem of Apocalypse Now, and, its source material, Heart of Darkness, is that both works attempt to understand the problems of imperialism and colonialism by “othering” the imperialists. Both Colonels Kurtz are seen as madmen who have lost touch with the civilizing forces of white civilization. They have lost themselves in a jungle, literally, becoming the savages they seek to rule.

This Eurocentric and patronizing view of colonialism merely buys into a racist narratives of the colonized as inferior and deserving of their suffering. If they were stronger and more civilized, they would have driven the Europeans away. Instead, they are unable to avoid the predation of the most savage of white men. Therefore, it is up to the superior white man to restrain the impulses of their own fellow whites. If you need more arguments along these lines, just Google “noble savage.”

However, Kong: Skull Island flips this narrative on its head. Jackson’s Packard is totally powerless in the face of Kong. Kong swats the helicopters from the sky as one would swipe away a particularly bothersome insect. Toward the end of the film, where Packard seemingly has Kong in his grasp, Kong is shown to be perfectly capable of protecting himself. He does not need the noble white man to save him. By naming Tom Hiddleston’s character Conrad, presumably after Joseph Conrad, author of the Heart of Darkness, the movie makes this implicit critique almost explicit.

Instead, it is the various good liberals who are problematic here. Every one of them plays a role in this hopeless journey of colonization. The scientists are doomed by their curiosity that does not carry with it a respect for the lives and feelings of those they are investigating. Conrad suffers from a lack of forcefulness in confronting Packard throughout the movie. Additionally, there are a number of moments in the film where the “good” characters inadvertently make Kong’s life harder, by lighting a cigarette or informing Kong’s adversaries as to their location.

Weaver, the photographer played by Brie Larson, is depicted as hopelessly naïve about the power of media to defend the powerless. Hiddleston critiques her for being a “war photographer,” which she reframes as being an “anti-war photographer.” Also, at a crucial moment in the film, Weaver herself fires a flare that alerts Kong’s adversary to their presence, endangering Kong and all the people left alive on the island. At the end of the film, Weaver appears to agree that she will never share any of the images that she has taken on her journey.

The reason why Kong is the most sympathetic character is because he’s the one hanging out at his house mostly keeping to himself and the humans are the ones that invade his homeland either for science, military aggression, or pure noxious curiosity. None of the people is quite as bad as Packard, whose brooding cruelty Jackson has a blast projecting onto the screen. These other characters are bad precisely because they are bland. All of them are depicted as simply going along with the mission even though they knew it was a bad idea because they did not have the guts to say no. To the extent these human characters suffer in this movie, it is clear that their own ignorance and lack of humility is the cause. VanDerWerff’s critique that they seem to be left with nothing to do ignores the fact that they are doing something important with that nothing.

However, the second best human performance of this movie belongs to John C. Reilly’s Hank Marlow, a sort of anti-Kurtz pushing a further ciritique of Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness. Marlow has learned to survive on Skull Island for decades by becoming humble. He made friends with the Japanese pilot who shot him down. He shows respect for the customs and traditions of his adversaries and the population of the Island. While he longs to escape, his considerable wisdom is ignored.

He is ignored precisely because he is somewhat out of touch with Western manners. He plays his character’s unhingedness with the kind of deft touch that Reilly brings to any portrayal. Reilly is at the same time both heavy handed and compassionate toward all his characters. The fact that Marlow is somewhat insane keeps the other humans from listening to his good advice. However, Marlow has actually gone somewhat saner than all the other humans by learning and respecting the world in which he was trapped. To the extent VanDerWerff thinks Marlow resembles Dr. Steve Brule, he has it backwards. Brule is a goofy know-it-all who doesn’t really know anything. Marlow is full of goofy humility, but actually understands what is going on.

[interwebsfamous]

But he’s our son of a bitch!

Sometime after World War II, someone made up a story that sounds like something FDR would say. In what is almost surely a mythical episode, FDR is told that some dictator the U.S. (and he, himself) supports somewhere is “a son of bitch.” Various versions of this story have it as a reference to Somoza in Nicaragua in 1939, Trujillo in the Dominican Republic during the 30s, or Stalin in 1942. FDR responds, "But he's our son of a bitch." Ever since then, this has become a trope that is rehearsed over and over again. It shows the dominance of short-term tactics over long-term strategy. I have long said that the answer to any moral question is always, “It depends.” However, the answer to the question to “Do the ends justify the means,” is “It depends on the ends and the means.” If you believe in a global fight against Nazism where losing might mean the end of democracy in Europe, it makes sense for someone to see Stalin as “our son of a bitch,” even though he was no better than Hitler in how he ruled the territories under his dominion. Both Roosevelt and Churchill sincerely believed that not helping Stalin beat Hitler probably meant the destruction of democracy in Europe. I find this dubious with the benefit of hindsight. I think Stalin would have easily outlasted Hitler, even without Western aid. However, I cannot say that the judgment of the Western powers was not based on the best information available at the time. That said, making a kind of deal with someone so totally evil as Stalin should only be done if it is going to legitimately increase the amount of good in the world. For instance, making a deal with Iran to end its nuclear program has not appeared to improve Iran’s position in Yemen, Syria, or Iraq. It has not increased its sponsorship of international terrorism. Also, Iran’s nuclear ambitions appear to be effectively constrained. Ayatollah Khamenei is in no way, “our son of a bitch.” However, his nuclear program has been defanged with little to no increase of suffering in the world.

I fundamentally despise false equivalence. If there are two sides in a dispute, rarely are both sides equally at fault. However, if two people or groups are fighting it is going to take both those groups to stop the fight. Right now, North American, European and other similar democracies are sharply polarized between right and left. However, this does not mean that both sides are equally wrong. That said, everyone makes mistakes. So, I’ll pick on my side first, even though I think the other side is at much greater fault. Justin Trudeau praised Castro at his passing. While Castro was no worse than Somoza, Trujillo, or any number of other Latin American dictators propped up by successive U.S. governments, he was at least as bad. There is no need to spill effusive words for the death of dictators, unless we really think that there is something to gain. Cuba will mourn Castro’s death. Canada need not shed any tears. Castro was legitimately awful. Maintaining an embargo on Cuba was also awful. However, Castro himself spent most of his time discrediting socialism and liberalism by association. Liberals should be particularly troubled by his legacy of undermining the humanity of their own movement. That said, political conservatives in the United States have a far longer legacy of praising rogues and dictators. The list of dictators praised by the Republican Party is long and includes some of the worst of the worst. However, the Republicans have now elected their own authoritarian demagogue. For all of my Republican friends, I urge you to not make the same mistake that Justin Trudeau has done. The President-elect is a moral cancer. Many Republicans have strongly stood up to him in his campaign. They have challenged his lies, his cruelty, his sense of entitlement, and his disregard for the autonomy or rights of others. Truth is the first casualty in the age of political polarization. We have evolved to hear as true that which does not contradict our current understanding of the world. However, our experience of investigating the universe has found that that evolved response is an impediment to inquiry and problem-solving. This is why Donald Trump could utter brazen falsehood after brazen falsehood on the campaign trail and not be called out on it. Those falsehoods did not sound false because they sounded like what people wanted to hear. If there was a deal we could make with Donald Trump that would make life better for everyone, I would gladly make it. However, I think that the evidence suggests that won’t happen. So I don’t feel any need to align with Donald Trump as my son of a bitch.

[interwebsfamous]

Why Captain America Is Totally Wrong in Civil War and Why That Is Important for Us to Recognize [SPOILERS]

I love superheroes. I love comic book movies. I love watching the Justice League with my kids. However, almost every time I watch a superhero show with my daughters, I find myself commenting, “Just try talking out your problems!”

Superheroes are fun to watch because they appeal to our ability to use both our brute strength and our wits to defeat evil. The problem is that viewing the world as a battle between good and evil is the way evil perpetuates itself.

I was raised as Calvinist Protestant Christian. In that religious tradition, there were two important insights that I think are valuable. First, Calvinists believe that all people are effected by evil but have the potential to be good. Second, Calvinists understand evil to be weaker than good.

I think these insights can be easily secularized. Our concepts of good and evil basically spring from our desires. When a child shouts that something is “not fair,” it is not because she has identified a universal moral principle. Rather, that child has not gotten what she wants. What we describe as “evil” are simply those things we do not want. What we describe as “good” are those things that we do want.

The reason that seeing the world as a battle between good and evil is problematic is because compromise can create more of what everyone wants. However, conflict generally reduces the opportunities to get what we want.

The one place that conflict is useful is in ending conflict. Avoiding conflict where conflict exists is toxic. However, fetishizing conflict and aggression is generally not a good way to resolve conflict. Resolving conflict involves recognizing the limits of our ability to persuade others and finding ways to live together without stoking conflict.

So why is Captain America wrong? Captain America, in the Winter Soldier, is right to recognize that the World Security Council can be corrupted. However, generally corruption is when powerful people use that power to get more of what they want at the expense of the vast majority of the rest of us.

What I think Steve Rogers is totally wrong about is the best way to combat HYDRA. Steve seems to think that blowing up aircraft carriers and punching people in the face will reduce HYDRA’s ability to recruit people towards its totalitarian ideology.

However, while HYDRA’s belief system might be attractive to those who grew up indoctrinated in its ultra-nationalist Ancient Egyptian belief systems, surely not all of the factions of HYDRA have the same ideology.

In fact, the Avengers were able to successfully play the divisions between the various factions of HYDRA against themselves in the comics. Rather, the Avengers could bring down HYDRA from the inside by making it more difficult for HYDRA to access resources and transport resources and equipment across national lines. It is unclear how HYDRA itself is funded, but certainly restricting their access to financial markets through aggressive regulation is a strategy that has worked well against Al Qaeda and the Da’esh (ISIS).

The answer to supervillains is not more superheroes, but more democracy. By showing supervillains that we will not be cowed into submission, their attempts at extortion become almost impossible. Surely, even HYDRA recognizes that carrying through on its threats to set off a hydrogen bomb in a populated area will make it difficult for HYRDA to continue its long-term goals. Also, building a hydrogen bomb is such a resource intensive task, that by attacking HYDRA’s infrastructure through banking regulation, they are almost certainly never going to achieve their goal.

Finally, by accepting civilian oversight, superheroes show that they themselves are not corrupt. Remember that the definition of corruption is prioritizing one’s own wants in a way that is detrimental to a large group of people. Superheroes should be compensated for the public for their services, but they should not be allowed to operate with impunity. When superheroes kill innocent people, they should be held accountable to the extent that is physically possible without putting more innocent lives at risk.

This matters because there are a large group of voters in America right now who sincerely believe that they should be able to punch their way out of political disagreements. Consider the violence at Trump rallies, Bernie Sanders’ supporters throwing chairs at the Nevada Democratic Convention, or even Wendell Pierce punching a Bernie Sanders’ supporter at a hotel in Atlanta.

The problem with Captain America is that he cannot see the humanity of his opponents in HYDRA. Although HYDRA as an organization is committed to a violent ideology, its individual members all have their own distinct motivations. Seeing all foot soldiers for HYDRA as totally evil prevents Captain America from playing on their internal divisions and making alliances to weaken the power of HYDRA’s ideology.

The key to defeating evil is not labeling our opponents as evil. The key to defeating evil is recognizing the good in our enemies and being willing to forgive evil to increase the good in the world. That’s why Tony Stark was right to let Captain America get away at the end of Civil War.

Also, the beauty of Civil War is that it does not present its villain, Captain America, as evil. Rather it presents him as a person with a set of sincere beliefs that leads him to do things that hurt others. Hopefully, more movies will try to present villains as sincere rather than cartoonish. Also, movies that simply threaten an apocalypse for every climax have already become boring.

Captain America is not evil. He is just wrong. He can still be persuaded to do the right thing, and may be a useful ally again someday. At the time, Tony Stark did not have the ability to prevent Captain America from taking the actions he did. Hopefully, in the future, Captain America can one day work with Tony Stark to ensure democracy, the rule of law, and a more equitable distribution of resources to the world’s people.

[interwebsfamous]

Batman v. Superman, 543 U.S. 310 (2016) SPOILERZ!

Okay, this is not a review of the movie per se, so much as an idea about how the movie could actually have been good. Suffice it to say, that I pretty much ruin the entire movie here, so stop reading if you do not want me to do that for you. 

The problem with any Zack Snyder movie is that they are beautiful nonsense. Zack Snyder is a great cinematographer, but a shitty storyteller. In his movies, literally anything is possible, because he does not care about plot, character arcs, or the emotional journey of the audience. However, BvS looks great. The Batman scenes are the most Batmannish of any I’ve ever seen on the big screen. However, almost none of this movie made any sense.

I think the same movie could have been made infinitely better by one main change: make Wonder Woman the main character. It is really that simple. The conflict between Batman and Superman is actually quite natural and makes a lot of sense. In this movie, Batman is a rogue vigilante who has no respect for the legal system or society in general. Superman is a basically an offshoot of the CIA. The conflict is natural. Batman is the jihadi and Superman the global superpower.

The problem with this scenario is obvious. First, Superman could simply squash Batman like a bug with very little concern or effort. Snyder solves this first by having Superman show restraint towards Batman. This is in keeping with the earlier tradition of Superman being an almost omni-benevolent being. However, Snyder destroyed that Superman in the prequel to BvS, by having Superman simply murder General Zod. Therefore, it reads as false here. Superman could surely see that Batman was attempting to steal kryptonite for the sole purpose of murdering him. A Superman so caught up with his powers that he is willing to act as judge, jury, and executioner, would have little problem permanently maiming or murdering Batman.

Then later in the film, Superman is given the choice between seeing his mother die, who is being held captive in an undisclosed location (Gotham City), or murdering Batman. Once again, this is Superman we are talking about. This is not a choice. Superman just flies to Gotham City and saves his mother. He does not need to fight Batman. Superman does not need the help of the world’s greatest detective. He can see though fucking walls and can hear things miles away.

So the central conflict that Snyder sets up is smart, IMHO, but he does not have an intelligent way to resolve it without one of the two superheroes murdering the other. However, the solution to Snyder’s problem is right in front of him. Wonder Woman. She has a lasso of truth and she can fight crime with the power of love. She can also hold her own in a fight with the two titular assholes.

Here’s how Snyder could have made the movie good. The movie starts out mostly the same way, but slowly we learn that Wonder Woman is secretly trying to bring Batman and Superman together, because she works for the DoD and knows the danger of the Kryptonian technology on board the spacecraft and has some long-term goal for them as a team. Batman and Superman hate each other because they are both alpha bros who cannot see past their own dumb ideas of right and wrong.

Also, instead of Superman being innocent, which Snyder already jettisoned in the last movie, he should simply be a tool of the military industrial complex. He does not need to save Lois Lane from an African warlord because he loves Lois Lane. He could just be working for the CIA. There is no need for Lex Luthor to make a Superman, who is already a killer, into a bad guy. Superman could simply have crawled up his own sense of goodness and justice and gotten trapped there as an agent of evil, but in a way that is sufficiently different from the comparable process that made Batman evil. (Spoiler alert, Batman is and always has been, an anti-hero.)

Wonder Woman should not be interested in saving Batman and Superman from their own stupidity, so much as she could simply have a long-term plan that we see play out over the course of a few Justice League movies. Maybe something is in it for her if she defeats some big baddie with their help. We do not need the reveal yet. But, we could have some sort of sneak peak that makes it clear that she has her own motivations.

Wonder Woman could simply be portrayed as smarter than Batman and Superman and manipulating them to keep them from destroying each other. Maybe she knows that Superman needs to be taken down a peg now that he is a stone cold murderer, so she gives Batman some kryptonite to make anti-Superman weapons. However, she also knows that killing Superman would ultimately keep her from doing whatever it is that she needs to do in the next movies, so she could intervene to keep Batman from killing Superman. Kryptonite is not her kryptonite.

The fight scene could ultimately end up with Wonder Woman redirecting these two alpha morons to fighting another big baddie, maybe Luthor or the third act monster that Snyder preferred. She could intervene in the middle of their final fight scene to talk sense into both of them. Then, once Batman and Superman fight together and win, possibly with the movie ending exactly as it does, it would emotionally make sense that the two could become friends.

Anyways, I’m going to now reprogram my brain with this infinitely more interesting version of the movie that I wish I had seen.