The Problem With Opposing DEI.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is the subject of lots of opinion (for and against) these days.  DEI is criticized (by its critics) for deliberately and seemingly unfairly giving an advantage to some groups of people.  The most extreme objection goes by the slogan "The Great Replacement Theory."  As if making room for some groups of people to be here, exist, and thrive was a "zero sum game," which meant that other groups of people were displaced or deprived.

And the critics are partially right about their understanding of DEI.  In earlier days, we called it Affirmative Action, and it most definitely does give an advantage to some groups of people.  To the extent that it smooths the way for some of those people to enter this country, settle and stay here, and become citizens, it does make room that was selfishly hoarded before.  Whether or not it "replaces" anyone is much more a matter for interpretation.

But here's the problem.  If we say, for the sake of convenience, that the groups advantaged by DEI are guaranteed a right to be here, and common advantages, about which the critics complain, those critics didn't complain when they themselves had all the advantage.  They complained about Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus, but they didn't complain when she was relegated to the back seat.  They don't mind if some people are winners, as long as they're the winners.

When the Pilgrims came here in the 1600s, there were already people here.  Today, we call them Native Americans.  The Pilgrims didn't feel unentitled to impose themselves, and their religion, and their diseases, on the Native Americans.  And they violently mistreated those Native Americans in ways worse than they claim to think current immigrant hopefuls would mistreat them.  And took most of their land.

What's curious (and infuriating, frankly) is that in the past 60+ years, we've welcomed immigrants from Cuba, and many of those Cuban immigrants now claim to object to our welcoming other immigrants.  They fear, or claim, presumably, that they think the immigrant hopefuls to whom they object would behave in ways, and occupy this country, that the rest of us didn't fear when we opened the doors to them.

We've settled on various bogeymen over time.  The same things are alleged about every immigrant group: Germans, Irish, Italians, Middle Easterners, Chinese, Japanese (shocking mistreatment during WWII), and others.  During WWII, we turned away some ships carrying Jewish immigrant hopefuls, because we didn't want any more of "those" people here.  And over time (at most one generation), they all adopt American styles and values.  Well, all except the Native Americans, whom we appear to be unable to stop abusing, and the African Americans, who never came here looking for a better life, and whom we also appear to be unable to stop abusing.

Yesterday, a large ship rammed and took down a bridge in Maryland.  The bridge is a total loss, and although traffic alerts were broadcast to warn drivers, the people working on the bridge were not alerted.  Six of them died.  As far as I know, all six were from Central America.  Those are the people some of us keep trying to keep out, imagining it would be terrible to have them here.  They were working, on the bridge, had been here for years, had families, paid taxes, and were at least as creditable citizens as the people who don't want them to be here.

When we're not in some sort of hysteria over immigrants, we call (or at least used to call) this country a "melting pot."  And it is.  That's one of our great strengths, as long as we don't pick nonsensical fights with each other.  More or less no one who rails at DEI is a descendant of the Pilgrims, and even if they were, their forebears were unwelcome intruders.  DEI is what this country, when it functions rationally, is about.  African Americans can vote, except where the backward "Americans" are still trying to suppress them.  Women can vote.  Few but the most lost are distracted by miscegenation.

If you've never seen Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," you'll see that Americans tend to be a terrified people.  And for no reason, other, perhaps, than some self-consciousness and guilt.  We're entitled to feel that way, and the best way to keep ourselves self-conscious and guilt-ridden is to follow people like Ronnie DeSantis, and pretend we don't have to know about our mistakes, and the things we did wrong.  DeSantis, huh?  Sounds like maybe a French name.

The G.O.A.T.

I've been back and forth about following sports.  I finally gave up years ago, because the teams aren't devoted to the players, the players aren't devoted to the teams, the salaries are ridiculous (ridiculously high now*, although many decades ago, they were ridiculously low), protections often not good enough, and way too many players seem to want to hurt or damage other players.  To put it in a certain way, I don't follow basketball for the same reasons I don't follow boxing.

*I always remember when Mo Vaughn was a beloved player for the Boston Red Sox, but he left to go to the Los Angeles Dodgers.  The Red Sox were offering him $6.2M a year, and he said he had to worry about supporting his family, so he went to the Dodgers, who offered more.  Anyone who can't have a perfectly wonderful life, and provide luxurious support for their family, making $6.2M a year, has problems that more money won't solve.

And it's less likely to decide on a Greatest of All Time (G.O.A.T.) in baseball than in something like basketball, because there are more people on a baseball team.  But there has been talk about Shohei Otani, who is a remarkable pitcher and a remarkable hitter.  These disciplines are commonly thought of as opposite of each other, in the sense that expertise at one undermines quality at the other.  But Otani is sort of off the charts at both at the same time.  Babe Ruth started as a pitcher, too, but when his hitting became pre-eminent, he stopped pitching, to save his arm for hitting.

There's a population of people who say Tom Brady is the G.O.A.T. in football, which has even more players than does a baseball team, but Brady was not great in college, and he wouldn't have been great in the pros without a very protective offensive line, and excellent rushers and pass-catchers.  It would even be hard to say that Brady was the greatest quarterback of all time, because the game has changed, and many quarterbacks these days, most certainly including Brady, don't scramble as they did decades ago.  They just get protected.

Soccer fans seem generally to consider Lionel Messi the G.O.A.T.  He's great, and a great member of a team.  For me, it's Ronaldinho.  But perfectly solid arguments get made for Pele and Maradona.  Thierri Henri is on various people's list, too.

But there's an ongoing and entrenched idea of deciding which player is the G.O.A.T.  Or there's an ongoing and entrenched idea that there could be something like a G.O.A.T.  In team sports, there really couldn't.  With a rare possible exception which we'll explore.  In team sports, everyone depends on everyone else, and even if, let's say in basketball, one player scores more points, or logs more assists, or pulls down more rebounds, it's a team effort, in which plays are concocted, so that a player in a certain position will get more points, assists, or rebounds, and no one could use the stark statistics to decide someone was the G.O.A.T..

And not only that, but various conditions change.  When Wilt Chamberlain played, he was, as far as I know, the only seven foot tall player.  Now, there are several or many.  But Chamberlain had a unique advantage at the time.  And the rules change, favoring rushing, or passing, in football, or, in basketball, a more physical game or a less physical game.  The fans like scoring, so the rules are changed to allow for more points.  That's why in basketball, a three point line was instituted, so that a successful shot from far enough back to earn two points, now earns three points.  What would the earlier point producers have accomplished if a percentage of their shots had produced 50% more points?  Were they not considered the G.O.A.T. then, but they would be if they were playing now?  And what about a shorter player like Steph Curry, who is considered a master of the three point shot?  If that shot doesn't exist, and he has to come to the basket, is he a lesser player?

In basketball, it's fairly common that Michael Jordan, most of whose career was in Chicago, is considered the G.O.A.T.  But let's also not forget that whole teams are constructed around a good or great player, so that player looks better, and the team wins more.  It wasn't Jordan who won six championships.  It was the Bulls team.  And there's an argument that Jordan and the Bulls would not have been as successful without Scottie Pippen.

One of my all time favorites, for a number of reasons, is Larry Bird.  He is very widely acclaimed for his "basketball IQ" and his work ethic.  He started turning the then losing Celtics around as soon as he got there.  But Kevin McHale was then brought in, as was Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson, and Danny Ainge, and Bird had a short career, due to injuries.  The Celtics of which he was a member for about 12 years won three championships.  How many would they have won if he hadn't gotten so injured because of his fearless play?  Bird was rookie of the year when he started, almost always an all-star, a two time "Dream Team" member, a three point championship winner three times, and after he stopped playing, went back to Indiana (the Pacers) and became coach of the year, and later manager of the year.  One story I heard about him, from one of his Indianapolis players, was that the team was stretching, and Bird, injured and after his playing days, in his suit and leather shoes, got up to leave, and started shooting three-pointers.  The team were flabbergasted that a retired player, not dressed for the court, could, without practice, still put them up like that.  And Bird's influence on the Celtics was to make them all better than they would have been without him.

There are frankly several or many choices for G.O.A.T.  People talk about the late Kobe Bryant, and now Luka Doncic.  And Oscar Robertson, and the immensely successful Bill Russell.  And they're all dependent on their teams, the times, and the rules.  Except for one player.

LeBron James grew up in Ohio, and he didn't go to college.  He didn't have the advantage of extra years of experience and coaching.  He went from high school to the Cleveland Cavaliers.  The team was not built around him, and it did not have great success when he first joined.  He was then traded to the Miami Heat, which won two championships with him.  He then went back to Cleveland, which also won a championship with him.  He then went to Los Angeles, where he still is, and they won at least one championship with him.  James is still playing, now at age 38, after 20 or 21 years.  He makes an impact, and many active and past players are in awe of his talent.  He owns the record for most NBA points at over 40K.  (Although there's a Brazilian guy -- not NBA -- who had over 49K points, and is rooting for James to break his record, because he considers James a "perfect player.")

So, I still say there is no basketball G.O.A.T., or a G.O.A.T. of any team sport, and there can't really be one.  But Larry Bird and LeBron James seem as close as it gets.

So, Ryan Huntington Has Stepped Up His Campaigning. Sort Of.

When I went to get the mail from the box immediately outside my front door today, I also found a door tag from Ryan.  No one knocked on my door today, so someone blew by my house for the purpose only of leaving the door tag.

The tag was completed on both sides of a glossy card.  On the "Vote Ryan Huntington" side, there was a photograph of Ryan (and one of him, presumably, in a group of firefighters), and his "Mission" statement.  Ryan aims to "review, interpret, and understand the culture and history of our Village, so we can create healthy, sustainable and tangible change for residents now.  Which can lead to growth opportunities for the future, while staying true to the integrity and beauty of our Village."  At the end of this side of the card was Ryan's suggestion that we "Vote for Change."

There are several issues here.  First, as I mentioned, someone just wanted to leave the card, but not get, you know, bogged down or waylaid by the time-wasting possibility of a conversation with the people whose votes Ryan wants.  Second, I'm still assuming that Ryan spoke to Chester Morris.  Chester is on the new post announcement circulation for this blog, and if Chester reads the posts, I would have thought he would have given Ryan a heads up to be sure to meet me.  The fact is not only that I did a post about Ryan, but I always offer candidates guest authorship, so they can use the blog to say what they want.  It would have been to my advantage and to Ryan's advantage if he met me.

Third, Ryan wants to become a Commissioner so he can "review, interpret, and understand the culture and history of our Village," etc?  Isn't that backwards?  Hasn't someone who would be a useful and meaningful Commissioner already reviewed, interpreted, and come to understand the culture and history of our Village?  I realize that there are always people who think they can be effective electeds with no prior knowledge, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're right.  I still don't know how long Ryan's lived here, or if he's indoctrinated himself or served the Village in any way.  His door tag seems to make clear he hasn't.  So, he imagines he's going to get elected, then waste time finding out about the Village and how it works, what we've done, what we haven't done, and why we haven't done what we haven't done, on the job?  I don't know anything about firefighters, but I would strongly suspect that firefighters have more sophisticated training than just being children or unrelated civilians who are overtaken by a sudden idea that they should join the FD, then figure out about fires and how to fight them later.

The other side of the door tag has a photograph of Ryan's family.  They're a nice-looking group.  If they wanted to be models, I'd encourage them.  The "About" section talks about how Ryan is a firefighter, paramedic, husband, father, and BP resident (right; he couldn't run if he wasn't a BP resident, for at least a year).  He also notes that he "care[s] deeply" about the Park.

Below that, he lists four goals.  They're essentially the usual boilerplate campaign platitudes, but #3 is curious, because Ryan says he wants to "Renew a culture of collaboration between elected officials and residents, where we seek resident input prior to any project."  So, Ryan doesn't have time to meet his neighbors when he wants their votes, but he wants to collaborate with them about projects once he's in office?  Must be that new math.

If I felt compelled to vote in this election, I'd have a problem.  Dan Samaria was already a Commissioner, and has given me reasons not to vote for him.  Ryan Huntington has a level of visibility that is more frustrating and insulting than it is enlightening and reassuring.  And I don't even know who the other candidates are.  I think there are some, but they're totally invisible.  If I'm wrong, and it's only Dan and Ryan, I won't bother to vote.  Dan won't make a good Commissioner (as if we cared any more, apparently), and Ryan is a "pig in a poke."  If my house catches fire, or I collapse in the street, I hope he helps me.  As a Commissioner?  I'm just not seeing it.

Jim Young, Conservative Republican From Oklahoma, and Christian (Whatever That Has to Do With Anything), Wants You to Know Something.

I voted for Trump – twice. Liz Cheney's book and DOJ's Jan. 6 indictment changed my mind (msn.com)

Young takes a very dim view of Biden, whom he strategically mischaracterizes, or to whom he misattributes problems*, so it's unclear what Young expects to do with his vote.  But he's made very clear what he's not going to do with it.  Although with two very dominant candidates, a vote not for one is a vote for the other.

I have my own complaints about Biden, but I will have no trouble holding my nose, and voting for him.  I won't really be voting for Biden.  I'll be voting against the person Jim Young now finally understands is an antidemocratic and antiAmerican criminal.  (How he managed to take this long to figure this out is a mystery he explains only by saying he read three things that all seemed entirely credible and were precisely in line with each other.  But the fact is that most voters could clearly see this in 2016 and 2020.  And those were the two years Young couldn't see the problem.  Well, he sees it now.  Maybe he was just mindlessly voting against any Democrat.  I didn't much favor Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.  But against the alternative?  Not even close.)

*One issue Young misattributes to Biden is the imagined problem of immigration, or the "southern border."  Young does not mention that Biden agreed to strong shoring up of the southern border, only to have Republicans, on Trump's orders, then refuse to institute that shoring up, so that the imagined problem would still be there at election time, and it could be blamed on Biden.

Anyone who somehow still doesn't recognize how entirely self-focused Trump is, to the detriment of anyone or anything except himself (although his mindless crusades are even damaging him now) has his or her head even further in the sand, or up his or her ass, than Young did.  Until he finally, somehow, "got religion."

I don't know if it's reassuring to see that some people finally get it, or it's further demoralizing to see how many people take forever, or never get it.  It really, really ain't subtle.  Most of us could always see it, and increasing numbers of people eventually do.  If it's not clear to you, even yet, I just don't know what to tell you.  I don't even understand what your problem is.  I just know you very clearly have one.

"Vote Ryan Huntington?"

I was finishing my neighborhood "exercise" walk this morning, and I encountered about a half dozen campaign signs that said "Vote Ryan Huntington."  They were all on 119th St between 6th and 8th Avenues.  They had one of those square symbols in the upper right corner, and if you focus your smart phone camera on it, you get more information.  But not much more.  I have no idea where Ryan Huntington lives, except I'm guessing it's in the Village.  His wife is Danielle, and he has three sons, all of whose first names start with H.  He's a firefighter.

If you want to know more, you have to enter his Instagram page, and since I'm opposed to social media (a discussion for another time), I'm not going to do it.  Oh, what happened to old fashioned BP campaigning, where candidates actually walked the Village, knocked on doors, met you, told you about themselves, and answered questions?  One of the cluster of signs I saw was in front of Chester and Sandi Morris' house, and Chester wouldn't allow someone to put a sign there if he hadn't met them.  So Ryan (is it OK if I call you Ryan?) must at least have met Chester, and probably Sandi.

There have already been a lot of Dan Samaria's reused signs around.  And I know Dan is running for the term that ends this coming November.  But Ryan (I'm going to assume it's OK) had signs made, which he would not have done if he had no ambitions past this coming November.  Frankly, the first thing that struck me about Ryan's signs was the darkish green color, and the upside down triangle outline (the BP outline) in the middle.  It was as if they had something to do with Vermont.  Maybe Ryan comes from Vermont.  Or not.

If I'm being honest and uninhibited (not like my usual inhibited self), I have to say BP politics have fallen apart.  In the past, it was the occasional dysfunctional oddball Commissioner.  Now, it's almost all of them.  It's been years since anyone except Mac Kennedy and I has actually campaigned -- you know, knocked on all the doors, and had sometimes lengthy conversations, and left flyers, and stuff -- and almost as many years since we've had a BP Commissioner who knew anything about the Park, and cared.  (And you know these people wouldn't get elected if we didn't vote for them.  So the lack of ambition and expectation is not just theirs.)  For a short time in the past eight years, Roxy Ross did the Village a favor.  Now, it's just Mac.  (I was hoping John Holland would decide he wanted more than to keep a seat warm for a month or so, but I haven't heard that he does.

This is why it's also been years since we had a competent and remotely interested manager.  And if we don't have a competent and remotely interested manager, then we have a police Chief whose main interests are being a big dog and collecting a nice check.  Actual improvements in the Village?  Um, not remotely.

I don't know if I should wish Ryan good luck.  Good luck with what?  He's got a day job, a nice family (I'll assume), and he probably makes enough as a firefighter that he doesn't need the $2000.  As I said, I have not the slightest idea where in the Village he lives, how long he's lived there, what he knows about the Village (its strengths and problems), and what is his vision, apart from getting elected, which I assume he wants, because he paid for the signs.  Should I imagine the no longer expectable possibility that he'll knock on my door, and campaign like a BP candidate?  Or am I supposed to find out everything I want to know from Instagram?  That's not gonna happen.  The Village is a tiny place.  If things have become that impersonal now, I'll just vote for Dan Samaria, or not bother voting at all.

Should They Look in the Mirror? Should They Just Get New Glasses?

As much as the majority of this country was mobilized against Communism, it's fair to say that Republicans were most virulent, aggressive, and sometimes mindless about combatting Communism.  Setting aside Joe McCarthy's moronic and destructive antics, we propped up a collection of pretty horrible dictators, just because they said they opposed Communism.

But Communism finally fell in most of the places where it dominated.  Its functional birthplace was in what became known as the Soviet Union, and it had other outgrowths, like in China and Cuba.  It also had an outgrowth in Vietnam, because North Vietnam won a war, sort of, and it failed to spread from North Korea to South Korea, because North Korea lost a war.  A number of other countries were absorbed into the Communist regime, but that's because of Soviet imperialism.  Cuba's largely hanging on, China sort of is, and the erstwhile Soviet Union, now Russia and other independents, have had an interesting and troubling journey. 

Two years ago, Russia staged a military invasion of the Ukraine, having earlier taken over Crimea.  Well, it wasn't really Russia.  It was Vladimir Putin.  He invented some nonsensical allegations, and he began expanding his empire.

Vladimir Putin was born into Communism in the Soviet Union.  He was a devoted Communist, and he worked his way up the hierarchy.  Eventually, after the Soviet Union disbanded, he became president of...Russia.  He did it the old fashioned Soviet way, which was all he knew.  He cheated, and anyone who got in his way got killed.  The last one was last week.  Putin is today's Stalin.

So, the United States, still telling itself it "exports democracy," even though it doesn't exactly have democracy to export, came to the aid of the Ukraine.  Until recently.  Now, the Republicans are niggling about supporting the Ukraine adequately, and some of them (famously and idiotically Tucker Carlson, who claims Russia is nicer and better than the US, but who inexplicably doesn't want to move there) are cozying up to Putin.  It's probably important to note that Donnie Trump also cozied up to Putin, because Putin, and a number of other world leaders, know that Donnie is shallow enough and stupid enough to let his head be turned by anyone who says nice things to him.  In fact, Donnie will tell you that.  He'll tell you how wonderful someone is, because they told him how wonderful he is.  If this sounds to you like mutual masturbation, it sounds like that to me, too.

But the point is that the Ukraine's enemy is Vladimir Putin, who is a typical Communist dictator and, as Donnie would put it, if it wasn't about his boyfriend, Vlad, a "thug."  Vlad is doing precisely what the original Soviets did: he's invading and destroying other countries to make them part of his empire.

If there's anyone on earth who should be reliable to challenge that, it's American Republicans.  They should be able to do this in their sleep.  This is a Soviet dictator, once again trying to build himself an empire.  But they can't now.  They have two problems.  Maybe three.  One is that Democrats want to support the Ukraine, and Republicans today are incapable of doing anything in concert with Democrats, no matter how much they would otherwise be inclined to do it.  The second is that the Republican Party is broken and in such shambles that it can't really decide to do much of anything.  Certainly nothing adaptive.  The possible third problem is that Donnie just loves his boyfriend, whom he acknowledges trusting more than anyone, and it's extremely possible he has let his Republican stooges know not to get in his boyfriend's way.  One of Donnie's other psychotic fantasies, assuming he believes it, or cares, is that he will be elected president again, and having retaken the office (oops, sorry, Donnie, I forgot you were arguing that POTUS is not an office.  Well, it is to the rest of us.), he will ask lover boy Vlad to knock it off, which, he would tell himself, Vlad would, because Donnie always believes this nonsense about other dictators falling all over themselves to please him.

It's hard -- impossible, really -- to fathom how today's American Republicans aren't painfully aware of the comically ridiculous, and antithetical to everything they normally believe, corner into which they have painted themselves.  It's as if they no longer even know who they are.

Or, To Look At It In a Different Way, We Can Consider Placebos.

You Know It’s a Placebo. So Why Does It Still Work? | WIRED

It's certainly noteworthy that this article is about both the medical use of placebo, and about politics.  As, frankly, it should be.

Let's start out talking about placebo.  The article mentions that this intervention is ancient.  It mentions that the vast, vast majority of doctors use it (for various reasons, under various circumstances, and with various styles).  I have.  Placebos have a number of kinds of meanings, including becoming what we call "transitional objects."  The article talks about one reportedly very imperfect study that showed placebo benefit in most of the patients in that very imperfect study.  The fact is that in much more careful, rigorous, and proper study conditions, placebo is reliably effective about 1/3 of the time.  I count that as impressively effective.  Interestingly, it turns out not to matter whether the prescriber does or doesn't admit the prescribed substance is a placebo.  When I was in high school, and I worked for a pharmacist, we used to dispense something called "Cebo-Caps."  My uncle, who was an internist, used to prescribe Obecalp (placebo spelled backwards).  In my internship, I did an emergency room evaluation of a man who had what we used to call "cardiac neurosis."  He reported constant chest pain, was nonfunctional, and always thought he was at death's door.  During the history, I asked him about his medications.  There was a very long list.  At some point, he said he was taking "placebo."  I asked him the dose, and he told me.  He didn't seem to recognize that placebo was an inert add-on, so the doctor could give him yet something else without causing drug interactions or exposing him to more side effects.  And setting aside the purely intentional prescribing of placebo, there's the prescribing of various things (medications, surgery, psychotherapy) that the doctor thinks have clinical value, but they don't.  (I just read an article about 18th or 19th C Americans who "reasoned" that tuberculosis was caused by vampires, so they exhumed the bodies of people who died of TB -- and were therefore vampires -- and removed their hearts and burned them, so they wouldn't come out of their graves and give others TB.   Sometimes, it's even proven that the interventions don't have clinical value, but the doctor institutes them anyway, either to be able to offer something, instead of nothing, or to create a basis to charge a fee.

But you don't need me to tell you any of the secrets of medical practice.  If you read the linked article, some of them aren't so secret any more anyway.  This is about more than that. 

If, for example, you look at the "Fortunately" paragraph, you will see that a doctor might prescribe an antibiotic for a condition that is not treatable with antibiotics, or vitamins when there is no deficiency.  The doctor knows s/he is not doing anything active.  But s/he 1) has been consulted, and does not want to feel like a useless disappointment who can't improve the patient's situation, and 2) the doctor has been consulted by a patient who commonly wants something done.  The patient neither knows nor cares that what the doctor is doing isn't going to affect/improve the patient's health.  The patient just has symptoms, and wants something done.  And the doctor gets to pretend to be useful, and gets to charge for the intervention.  So it's really a collusion.

"In a deepfake world where AIs masquerade as people, where marketing calls itself wellness...there's probably nothing so refreshing as a tiny step in the opposite direction: prescribing a pill of nothing, and calling it out as such."  It's a nervy thing to do -- openly admitting you're not doing anything -- and many doctors can't bring themselves to do it.  But as I said, it doesn't change the (1/3 positive) outcome if you do.

"The resulting study" paragraph illustrates how improbably doctors can get away with open label placebo prescribing.  They have the patients to help them, by the patients' in effect inventing their own excuses why something that can't chemically work works.  It turns out to be essential that the patient provides a good deal of the fantasy that inert materials are somehow effective.  In a related setting, voodoo curses "work," because the cursed person believes they work.

"The researcher's bedside manner is crucial...Maybe we start to feel better when someone listens to us, shows respect for our views, and makes common cause with us."  Or even pretends to.  I left off "against our ailments" because it's unclear what the ailments are, or if there have to be any.

"Perhaps OLPs [open label placebos] are a sort of meta-placebo, a testament to how much we believe in our power of belief...A patient may find relief from an open label placebo, the sugar pill that we know is a sugar pill gives us something that its deceptive counterpart doesn't[!!].  It tells us we aren't dupes who can be fooled by lab-coated experts[!!]."  You really have to give those statements careful consideration.  Belief is as good as education, training, and knowledge.  It may be better.  And it allows us not to feel somehow inferior to people who have more education, training, and knowledge than we do.  The table is entirely turned.  The "lab-coated experts" aren't the experts.  The believers are the experts.

"When you venture outside the scientific literature into the world of contemporary consumer marketing, most of the placebos you'll find are still the deceptive kind...Placebos also haunt what the political scientist Murray Edelman famously termed the 'symbolic uses of politics.'  In voters' 'anxious search for direction,'  --[an 'anxious search for direction;' that tells you something you should keep in mind] -- Edelman argued, they might be drawn to leaders who can dramatize confidence 'in a world many of them find alien' -- regardless of whether that performance achieves anything for the voter.  'In place of impersonal threatening forces, followers are reassured by a dramaturgy of personal coping,' Edelman wrote.  That was in the 1960s, but it could just as well have been describing any number of modern politicians."  Or snake oil salesmen.  (If you just became incontinent of urine, you're paying attention, and you get the point.)

"Increasingly, though, cultural (as opposed to clinical) placebos are becoming open label, too."  If you've ever watched Jordan Klepper talk to Trump supporters, and point out their inconsistencies, and the entirely invented, and not remotely true, positions they take, because the "doctor" told them what was the problem, and what was the cure, and they either can't continue the conversation, or they just keep riding the same inane position, you see how the placebo has completely taken hold.  You see how the belief trumps (excuse the pun) all evidence of reality, and how the fact of adhering to a belief is somehow treated as an adequate reason to disqualify experts.  The ability to form, or adopt, an opinion is more compelling than careful and lengthy education.

"So why, when we know the sham treatment is a sham, does it work?  My best bet is that whether we're in a medical setting or casting a vote, we want to feel like someone's taking care of us."  If that sounds like the description of a helpless child, dismissing it that way fails to take into account animal behavior, which is reflected in human nature.  Many animals, including human ones, rely on a pack mentality and social structure.  And it's well known that some non-human animals, and human ones, have a kind of "personal" nature that leads them to lead, and most have a nature that leads them to follow.  Ideally, "leaders" who are doctors are interested in their patients' well-being, as Hypocrates suggested they should be.  The same cannot remotely be said of people who lead politically, or in business.

There are various kinds of toxic "placebos" foisted on people.  Some "leaders" order their followers to take poison, or bully, harm or kill someone else.  Others tell their followers that there are barbarians at the gate, and that gate is, for example, the southern border of this country, which vile, greedy, rapacious, criminals want to breech.

It's tragic that they don't just give out sugar pills instead.

We Came in Second? To California?

America’s Most Racist States in 2024 (RANKED) (msn.com)

This article is someone's way of ranking the racism of states in this wonderful country of ours.  They used two indicators: the number of registered hate groups (hate groups register themselves?), and the number of racist post-election tweets.  It's not made clear how they count racist post-election tweets.  Most commonly, the number of racist post-election tweets is listed as a fraction.  I don't know what 1.4 racist post-election tweets means, unless it's 1.4 per thousand or per hundred thousand or something.  But they don't tell you.

It's a curious thing that Alaska is the least racist state, according to the indicators chosen.  They're said to have one registered hate group, and no racist post-election tweets.  Interestingly, there's been some noise lately about Alaska's wanting to secede from the Union.  It appears they don't think they belong in this group of racist people/Americans.

If you're interested, you can look for yourselves at this list. 

Massachusetts (#32), for example, was much higher than I would have thought.  They were a good deal more racist than Oklahoma (#21), and not nearly as racist as Texas (#49).  Texas and Oklahoma abut each other.  I thought they were the same in terms of racism.  Someone just released a movie about greed and racism in Oklahoma.  Well, maybe Oklahomans are less angry because someone else made a musical about them (it's not particularly great, but at least it's a musical), and Texans are more angry because they're saddled (sorry for the pun) with Greg Abbott, "Lyin'" Ted Cruz (that's what Donnie Trump calls him when he's insulting Ted, Ted's wife, and Ted's father, and Ted is, um, how can put this, performing fellatio on Donnie), and Ken Paxton.

We in "sunny" Florida were the second most racist state.  Apparently, we have 53 registered hate groups and 1.3 racist post-election tweets.

Yeah, OK, California has way more people than we do here, but how do they have 65 registered hate groups, and 0.5 racist post-election tweets?  It's as if Californians were angry enough to have a lot of hate groups, but not angry enough to send out racist post-election tweets.  Californians are so mellow that they're racist, but they can't be bothered to do much about it.

If you're wondering how California and Florida were more racist than Texas, and Texas was #49, it's because they also included DC.  So there were 51 entries, not 50.

Who's Your Daddy? (Who Are Your Daddies?)

Yet again, Donnie Trump is getting donations to pay his lawyers (whom he isn't going to pay).  Now, the tits he's sucking are on "megadonors," not just the small contributors.

Donnie started his life this way.  His biological daddy, Fred Sr, had amassed an impressive (depressing, if you were one of his tenants) portfolio of real estate, and he didn't want to leave it to Fred Jr, Donnie's older brother, who reportedly had a drinking problem.  (Are we, in Donnie and Rep/con fashion, to write off Germans as rigid and unempathic, even about their own offspring?)  So, Fred Sr left his wealth to Donnie, who began squandering and mismanaging it.  I don't know anything about Fred Sr and his wife, but apart from one daughter who became a judge, they seem to have spawned troubled boys.

Why Fred Sr underwrote his loser son, Donnie, is a mystery to me.  But he did, and Donnie lost money hand over fist.  Fred Sr kept underwriting Donnie and his losses.  Maybe Fred Sr was just a superficial and meaningless person, and as long as he could see the Drumpf/Trump name in lights, he was satisfied.  The result, though, is that Donnie's adulthood, failure that it was (bankruptcies, chronic marital failures, etc) was enabled by Fred Sr, because Donnie couldn't do anything except fuck up.  (Except at least he wasn't an alcoholic, like Fred Jr, and he held on to daddy's leg, and made fun of Fred Jr.  That was his big accomplishment.  And it led him to realize that phony images are everything, so creating them became his specialty.)

Fred Sr was Donnie's daddy.  But Fred Sr is dead now, so Donnie has found a collection of other daddies.  He predictably gets himself in various kinds of trouble, and he either stiffs the people he "hires" to bail him out of it, or he gets other suckers to give him their money, so he can...  You know, I don't know what he does with the money.  I don't know if he pays the people he "hires," or he just uses it to support his phony upkeep.  Why should you pay overpriced lawyers to get you out of the trouble you make for yourself, if you can stiff them, like you stiff everyone else, and buy a gold toilet for your 30K sq ft (or is it 11K sq ft?) apartment instead?  And that apartment is worth... Oh, that's right, I read yesterday that anything burdened with the Trump name (anything that hasn't gone out of business already) is dropping in value.

But still, those donors keep coughing up their money.  Why?  Assuming they think Donnie will pull a victory out of his ass (well, our asses), The Guardian says this: "while many donor concerns remain -- not least following Trump's comments about abandoning NATO members -- for some donors they appear subordinate to their support of policies including low taxes and environmental deregulation."  Although The Guardian adds that tech billionaire Peter Thiel and Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman won't donate again.  It wasn't explained why people with way more money than they can possible figure out what to do with would turn away from someone who will advocate to give them more, and allow them to finish trashing the planet.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe there really is a religion to get.  (Although to be fair to myself, I never said there wasn't religion.  I just said it's based on fairy tales.)  But the point is that although Donnie doesn't approve of addiction to alcohol, he does approve of addiction to money, and he doesn't care how much damage is done in the pursuit of it.  And the same is true of the vast majority of the suckers who donate their money to him.  It's a curious thing that someone with so many daddies has so many people whose uncle he is.

So, we'll see.  Some perseverative idiot who calls himself "Anonymous" always, regardless of the topic of the posts in this blog, enters comments about Trump's winning this year.  I have not the slightest doubt s/he will do it again under this post.  I wonder if s/he is one of Trump's mindless donors, too.  Likely so.

"Secession?" I Think That's the Wrong Word.

So, 36% of Alaskans want to secede from the Union.  Alaska was the last or next to last state to be admitted, and now, they want out.  Alaska Secession Calls Grow as More Than a Third Want State to Leave US (msn.com)  And a proportion of Alaskans is only the largest proportion from any state.  The national average of state residents who want their states to secede is 23%.  Call it a quarter.  Twenty-nine percent of Republicans have given up, and 21% of Democrats are done.

Thirty-one percent of Texans, 29% of Californians, and 28% of New Yorkers and Oklahomans have had enough.  "Just" 13% of Minnesotans, and 14% of Ohioans, Massachusettsites, and Rhode Islanders don't want to do this any more.

New Hampshire is interesting here.  The linked article says New Hampshire citizens are put off by the size of the deficit, but Carla Gericke, "acting president of the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence, 'described secession from the United States as 'an idea whose time has come and a reflection of the frustration everyone on the political spectrum [emphasis mine] is feeling.'"

Earlier this morning, I was reading an article that I can't find again, and it listed someone's view of the 10 worst presidents.  On the list was Calvin Coolidge, who was dramatically hands off of many things, and who shifted fiscal burdens away from the rich, badly aggravating the wealth disparity.  And a couple of them were reportedly personally opposed to slavery, but they did nothing to inhibit it.  Just those two things sound like indicators of the kinds of things that might lead to frustration among today's Americans.  Warren Harding, who made the list I saw, was too busy playing golf and carrying on with his mistresses.

But in my opinion, none of those things are most likely to lead to the level of pessimism and defeat felt by so many Americans, even in the original Commonwealth of Massachusetts and States of New York and Rhode Island.  The biggest problem we have now is that the public are irrelevant.  People are in office because they run for office, and running for office costs more money than the vast majority of people have, and candidates get the money it takes from donors.  It is those donors, not the public/voters, who are the electeds' constituents.  And if government is not in the public's/voters' interest, but rather at their expense, because they have to follow rules and pay taxes, and the rich/donors don't, then why would the public want to be part of the USA any more?  Because we develop and make things here?  They develop things everywhere, and they make them cheaper in other places.

And we've been sold another bill of goods, too.  The First Amendment to the Constitution promises/guarantees us that the Union will not impose a state religion, but many of the states do just that.  There are Americans who insist this is a Christian country, even though the First Amendment says it isn't, and they demand that everyone follow their interpretation of what they think Christian rules are.

Likewise, the "Second Amendment" (I put it in quotes because there is no "Second Amendment."  It has been indirectly repealed.) is about militias.  Many Americans insist it's about guns.  It's not at all.

The 13th Amendment freed the slaves.  This included that they -- African Americans -- had rights equal to everyone else's.  Tell that to African Americans.  Be prepared for an earful in return.

Donnie Trump rejects the popular vote and the Electoral College vote, declaring himself the winner, no matter how badly he lost.  He doesn't believe in democracy or a representative Republic.  And as of the last presidential election, he had a lot of support.  Tens of millions of voters favored him, and after he -- I'm sorry to say this, Donnie -- lost, he still had a significant contingent of Americans who agreed that he didn't.  He just couldn't have.  They attacked the seat of government, and sent all the legislators scurrying.  If many of them were unclear why they were scurrying, Mike Pence was clear: his life was directly threatened, by members of his own party, because he followed the law.

Donnie also rejects Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says that anyone guilty of insurrection cannot hold "any" federal or state office, civil or military.  And again, he appears to have some support for his position, although frankly, that support seems to be waning.  Colorado has found him guilty and will not put him on the ballot.  Maine seems to be following suit.   Constitutional expert Lawrence Tribe interprets that Donnie knows he is disqualified, and is relying on the SCOTUS to say that Colorado and Maine are wrong (based on who knows what, apart from the far right leanings of the majority of SCOTUS Justices), and this is why Donnie wants a wider ranging decision, and the trials he hasn't lost yet postponed until after the election.  He thinks he can still win it, in spite of all his disabilities.  By the way, if you watch Donnie ramble more or less incoherently, you see Donnie, and you see the sign-holders behind him.  What you do not see is the audience, which, by all other inferences, is most likely minimal.  Yes, I know about the polls, but poll results are a matter of how many people are polled, who those people are, and how many people who are asked for their opinions choose to give one.  I'm setting aside whether or not the opinions expressed are true representations of what respondents think.  If you're a fan of Jordan Klepper, and you watch enough of his videos, you'll catch one in NYC on a day Donnie was called into court, and he let it be known this was a time for support.  Almost no one was there.  We're talking about Manhattan, and Donnie couldn't stimulate tens of thousands of people, or a thousand people, or a hundred people, or more than maybe 5-10 people.

No, the word is not "secession.  It's dissolution.  It was Benjamin Franklin who said the Founding Fathers were giving us a democracy/Republic, "if [we could] keep it."  It appears we couldn't.  Or we didn't want to.  We exchanged it for a plutocracy.  And we rely for our choice of representatives on a collection of breathtaking dimwits, most of whom are voters who are mostly influenced by how much exposure candidates buy with money they got from their donors/constituents, and some of whom are the electeds themselves, who have no idea what they're doing, and seem delighted to spout nonsense.

Of course, maybe it doesn't matter if we dissolve or destroy this "experiment in democracy."  If our money-hungry and single-minded focus on continuing to burn fossil fuels finishes destroying the planet, then it's not a further loss if we destroy each country on it, either.