“Don’t get me wrong, slavery was a terrible, horrible thing. But you can’t whine and cry about it these days. I mean, Jews were slaves, but they’re not asking for compensation from Egypt.”
— Joe the Plumber

I’m sitting here in the Portland airport with time to kill, wondering if I have been too hard on the Perfesser – not that he cares, but civility matters. I haven’t been civil with him, but it seems that doing so merely feeds the beast. The man has a massive ego, or massive insecurity. He expects to be treated with deference, his opinions accepted as having gravity beyond disputation. If one does not knock him off the podium, he just goes on and on and on … right about everything, dismissive of anyone else’s outlook. He will lecture you if you let him, but that’s about it. He’s quite a piece of work.

So I take us back to the early 1990’s. Montana’s tax system was somewhat in disrepair, in that we had a top marginal tax rate of 11%, and according to accepted wisdom, that was driving people away. In addition, as a tax preparer, I saw many people who were exempt from even filing a federal return who were required to file a Montana return and pay some tax. We need to get rid of the top bracket – it was an illusion anyway – deductibility of federal taxes knocked that bracket down to seven percent. We needed chop off the bottom as well, to free people in the low brackets from filing at all.

The legislature was Democratic at that time, and they put together a package that satisfied both objectives – knocking down the top rate, clearing out the bottom. It would have, overall, reduced taxes for middle and lower middle class and eliminated them for the working poor, with slight increases in the upper tiers – overall, it was not revenue neutral – it was a tax decrease.

Along comes the Perfesser – screaming to all who would listen – “They’re raising your taxes!!! They’re raising your taxes!!!” He’s a one-noter in that regard – in his world, taxes are inefficient, the private sector totally efficient, so that any revenue that is collected by taxation is automatically poorly spent or invested. He’s wrong about that, of course, but try telling him.

Anyway, he launched a petition campaign to put the tax reform on the ballot, and demogogued it. He told people whose taxes were actually going to be decreased that they were going up – since he is never ill-informed, I can only conclude that he consciously lied about that. But it worked – the bill was rejected by the voters, and we went back to our old system.

Along comes Judy Martz, the ditzy blond, and a Republican legislature, and they have their own brand of tax “reform” – our current system, which is essentially a flat tax at 6.9%, with limited deductibility of federal taxes, aka double taxation of the same income. That hits high-income taxpayers very hard, and they know it. And we have people on the bottom who don’t have to file federal returns having to file Montana returns, and pay taxes.

Montana’s taxpayers were harmed by this man – he alone did this damage. He is responsible for lower income people having to pay taxes and file returns, he is responsible for double taxation of income for people who pay more than $5,000 in federal tax ($10,000 MFJ). If he hadn’t demogogued a good bill, we would not have gotten a bad one instead.

Natelson has a dedicated following, much the same as Ayn Rand does – people attracted to a simple world and troubled by nuance and unpredictable outcomes. His philosophy is easy to comprehend – taxes bad, regulation bad, government bad, private sector good. There is excellence in the private sector, mediocrity in government. If we had a minimum of government, it would be a better world. No matter that the system we have now came about because the private sector constantly falls on its face, with bubbles and depressions and recessions and extremes of wealth and poverty and uninsured people needing medical care, seniors starving for lack of pensions – no matter all of that. It’s only evidence, it’s only history. And it doesn’t matter.

After all, this is all about the perfesser. And he’s always right. Don’t believe me? Just ask him.

I wish this guy was representing us, instead of our current trust baby (and free market believer). Vodpod videos no longer available.

Apparently, not every sound ever made while the Beatles were in a recording studio has been anthologized, and there is still money to be made. But this one was released on the sly – that is, no one is making a buck on it. Not even Yoko. (Man is she pissed!)

It’s a different version of the original combined ideas for Revolution 1 and Revolution 9 that the boys put together. After they realized it had little market potential, they split it in two, embellishing the latter. It became two ideas, and sort of explains the origin of that long mysterious sound collage on the White Album, which I always thought of as Yoko’s attempt to make the band ordinary.

h.t: C Trent Rosecrans

We had a chance to view the Oscars last night – a gathering of family and friends, so I had a chance to collect some interesting views on it all.

1) Why does it matter?

It doesn’t. It’s just fun.

2) Was Slumdog all that good?

It was good, but not great. It was an impressive depiction of child abuse and poverty in India, and a good old-fashioned love story. It had enough poverty to ruin the love story, as people that damaged don’t turn out so innocent and nice. It had enough love story to detract from the poverty and cruelty, as it seems that growing up like that did not affect them at all. It did not know what it wanted to be. But it caught a wave, just as Crash did a couple of years ago – anything to stop the gay movie from winning.

3) Why was Brad Pitt nominated?

He adds runway appeal. So does Angelina. It’s about ratings.

4) Why did the two biggest movies of the year, Dark Knight and Mamma Mia, not get much mention?

The Oscars are about what we should watch – not what we like. They are meant to lift and separate us from our mundane proletarian tastes, to show us artists performing their craft with great ability. Meryl Streep can act, man. So can Nicole Kidman – why, she’s not even shallow. (Didn’t you just love The Hours? We all loved The Hours. It wasn’t boring at all.)

5) What’s with the gay thing?

Gay movies are slowly becoming mainstream, and there were several scenes of men kissing last night. But here is the interesting part of that – the gay parts cannot be played by openly gay men. It has to be straight men acting gay. Hence, Sean Penn, who really pulled it off, got the award. But leading men cannot be gay in real life – if they were, they would have no mass appeal, and no career. Hence they go to great lengths to protect their straight identity – fake marriages and macho pursuits, all while living the gay life in private. Right Travolta? Cruise? Gere? Hudson? Anyway, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has a problem with gay, it seems. Brokeback Mountain was far and away the best movie two years ago, and Milk this year. But the people who vote on this stuff? They are a little bit resistant.

6) Why does the Academy Awards show suck?

For one thing, ass kissing. Every award carries with it a bathroom break while the recipient rattles off a list of people we don’t know who he or she wants to work for again in the future. Then they have to mention spouses, kids, and teachers. You would think that people in the entertainment business would understand that this is not entertaining.

For another thing, these people need to be brought down – insulted, joked about, parodied – the kind of thing that comedians do so well if they are actually cut loose. Chris Rock tried it, with some success – he pissed some people off. Jon Stewart just failed. But it needs to be done – who would be a good host? Lewis Black? These people are taking themselves way too seriously.

7) Will Steven Spielberg ever make another good movie?

Probably not. Very few artists manage to keep the creative genius going through the aging process. Like Lucas, Spielberg’s best days already happened. This does not, however, explain Martin Scorsese or Clint Eastwood, who just keep getting better.

8 ) Why did they honor Jerry Lewis?

They think he might die soon. Other than that, it has never occurred to them.

9) Was Heath Ledger that good?

As the Joker, absolutely he was that good. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime performance – our lifetimes, as well as his. He was also impressive in Brokeback.

10) Who is Marion Cotillard?

She won best actress last year, playing Edith Piaf, a singer I had never heard of, in the movie La Vie en Rose. It was subtitled, dark, and hard to watch, but with all of that, it still captivated me. After we watched it I Googled her – she’s a beautiful woman, but was so submerged in the role that the beauty never shone through. She was all stooped over and had bad hair and a nasty temper and nervous tics. Only a confident person can make herself that ugly. Nicole Kidman could never pull that off.

11) Who is Nicole Kidman?

She used to be married to Tom Cruise, who’s probably gay, and that ten year marriage got her roles she never would have gotten otherwise. She really works hard at acting – you can tell she is working hard. She’s always trying to take on projects that stretch her range. Problem is, she has limited range. She can only play someone very pretty. She’s married to Keith Urban, now. He’s cleaned up for her. Yeah – that’ll last.

12)Frost-Nixon?

Didn’t win a thing. It was an interview, that’s all. As the New Yorker movie review wondered, why did they think it was so important? Anyway, we just can’t bury Nixon. We keep reminding ourselves what a bad dude he was. But like Oliver Stone’s “W”, it’s too soon. Not enough official papers have yet been released. There’s still way too many secrets.

He’s been here all along! (It’s a little disconcerting that he wanted to know my name.)

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Where empires go to die. Hard to believe that Obama isn’t aware of the dangers of a sinkhole war, but apparently not.

Here’s an interesting piece from Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 – Zbigniew Brzezinski backs up Robert Gates in saying that the root cause of the destabilization of Afghanistan during the 1980’s was not first the Soviets, but the U.S., which lured them there in 1979.

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum

Poor Afghanistan – perpetually caught in the Great Game. What is it about its location that lures superpowers there?

Some time ago I announced with some fanfare that I had undertaken to read the book The Varieties of Religious Experience by the American philosopher and psychologist William James. It has taken some time, but I have made my way through it, and wanted to summarize my impressions taken from the great professor.

But first, some essential humility. My intelligence is often called into question here, but the most important criticism is often missed by my critics, though Budge hits on it now and then – I dabble. I am the accountant who always wanted to be a lion tamer. I do have an IQ that is above the average, but this is a source of frustration, as all it does is introduce me to the higher realms of those who have real and startling intelligence, whose depth I can only observe but not hope to experience. So reading William James is like watching a train go by – there’s no way I can run fast enough to get on board.

That said, as soon as I put up my thoughts on the opening passages of the books, Ed Kemmick offered his own thoughts, having long ago read the book, and it kept me in suspense the entire time. Here’s what he said:

Mark: You’re in for one of the world’s great reads. I don’t want to ruin the ending for you, but James concludes that people throughout history who claim to have had religious, transcendent experiences actually did have them. He concludes this on the basis of having examined the experiences of thousands of believers from widely divergent times and places and having found similarities that couldn’t be explained in any other way but to conclude that they had experienced something divine or transcendent.

I most admire James for coming to this conclusion without himself being able to feel any religious impulse. It’s a wonderful idea, painstakingly arrived at: that there is something out there, but that given the “varieties of religious experience,” it appears unlikely that any given sect or individual has yet been given any clear instructions from God. He makes dogmatists and atheists both look close-minded.

So I embarked. James was systematic in his analysis of the religious experiences we have all read about, that some of us have encountered. He examines the testimony of those who have had personal experiences with the unseen, and concludes that these experiences, while being real to the beholder, are not necessarily “real” in any scientific sense – that is, they are subjective and unique to the one that experiences them. But they have something in common, in that they answer a personal crisis, and almost always lead the person to a higher quality of life, a better and kinder existence, allowing people to forsake drink and tobacco and cease to pursue wealth, for example.

Often people who undergo mystical transformation do so only in benefit for themselves, living out their lives in monasteries, ceasing to be useful for the rest of humanity. As such, James seems to discount the mystical experience as having any terrible significance. Such experiences are perhaps nothing more than a manifestation of some individual’s need for meaning in life. That does not give life meaning, however.

Then there is the conversion experience – Paul being blinded by light and having an immediate and significant change in personality. Such people – I have known one or two – often become engines of transformation for others. The process is generally brought about by suffering – deep suffering that most of us don’t experience – psychological torment of one form or another that cries out for immediate relief. Otherwise, the person might retreat into insanity. The conversion experience again seems to be set aside as a psychological phenomenon. Most who experience it go on to become more satisfied, but not exceptional people.

James then examines the saintly personality – those among us so dedicated to charity, simplicity and purity as to lead exemplary lives worthy of biography and (seemingly only in Western Civilization) autobiography. James notes a common characteristic among saints – the complete sacrifice of self.

“One of the great consolations of monastic life,” says a Jesuit authority, is the assurance that we have that in obeying we can commit no fault. The Superior may commit a fault in commanding you to do this thing or that, but you are certain that you commit no fault so long as you only, because God will only ask you if you have duly performed what orders you received, and if you furnish a clear account in that respect, you are absolved entirely.”

Later in the Twentieth Century, this would be called the Nuremberg Defense. It is most likely my own ‘getting-off’ point with religion. I cherish my ego, cannot let go of it. I derive too much joy from it to sacrifice it to some higher power that never saw fit to give me a personal visit.

Saints are indeed among us and do live according to higher virtues and leave more positive impact on us that ordinary people. They are worthy of note, but this does not testify to the reality of their personal interaction with a deity.

We have to pass judgment on the whole notion of saintship based on merits. Any God who, on the one hand, can care to keep pedantically minute account of individual shortcomings, and who on the other hand can feel such partialities, and load particular creatures with such insipid marks of favor, is too small-minded a God for our credence.

James then examines mysticism – the apparent union with a higher power after the dark night of the soul. James lived in the time of the Transcendentalists, Emerson and Thoreau and Whitman, and observes that mystical experiences are often in tune with nature. The experience is real to the beholder, but, concludes James, should have no particular hold over the rest of us. The observations of mystics can only be experienced, and not well described, and since that experience is limited but a few of us, can be taken less seriously than the work of serious philosophers. But the experience points to something valuable, as he later concludes.

James then attacks theology itself. He is one of those who was behind the development of the philosophy of pragmatism, along with Charles Peirce, the idea that the meaning of thought is only valid in the actions it produces. (Read sometime, for the sheer fun of it, The Metaphysical Club, by Louis Menand)

If, namely, we apply the principle of pragmatism to God’s metaphysical attributes, strictly so-called, as distinguished from his moral attributes, I think that, even were we forced by coercive logic to believe them, we we still should have to confess them to be destitute of all intelligible significance.

Richard Dawkins, the annoying atheist, comes to a similar conclusion – theology is not of much use, and can be set aside. In Dawkins’ case, it is not to be set aside lightly, but in Dorothy Parker’s words, should be “thrown with great force.”

Prayer – what good is it? James may seem to have dismissed much of the religious experience at this point, but he takes prayer seriously. He gives credit to the unconscious being, and concludes that there is a flow of energy from there to our conscious life, and that those ideas that thus flow are healthy. From prayer we receive inspiration, strength, wisdom, and virtue. Whatever the mystical nature of the prayerful experience, it is a positive value.

James concludes that religion starts with “an uneasiness”, and its solution. The conclusion is that “we are saved from wrongness by making proper connection with higher powers.” This experience takes us into the realm of the mystical, and indeed many among us have had real experiences with the mystical life.

The whole drift of my education goes to persuade me that the world of our present consciousness is only one out of many worlds of consciousness that exist, and that those other worlds must contain experiences which have meaning for our life also; and that although in the main their experiences and those of this world keep discrete, yet the two become continuous at certain points, and higher energies filter in.”

There is “over-belief” – conclusions drawn from conversion, prayer, mysticism and saintliness that are not supported by unique individual experiences or objective inquiry into them, but whatever it is that these people experience, it is indeed real, and there is far more to our existence than our conscious minds can absorb. James, the psychologist, would put in the realm of the unconscious overlapping with the conscious, with the unconscious not yet fully explored and with much to tell us about our lives and existence.

It’s a book that needs to be re-read – I hope to have that time. In the meantime, I hope I have done him justice; I know I have not.

This is a thread from down below – I thought it might be of general interest and hope the participants carry on: (Fred and Knight – no slight intended by not including your comments – please join in.)

Mark T: Oh – you mean you want me to defend [FDR] against your accusation that he did more to destroy competitive practices than any president in history. I took that as hyperbole. Many things you did not like came out of FDR’s reign. Libertarians did not fare well, but the country, as a whole is far better off before than after his stay in office.

I cite stronger labor unions, Social Security, unemployment insurance and public works – trails that I still walk on today, dams that still hold water for parched area farmers. Just for starters. The only president I can think of who did more for the public good was Nixon.

Dave Budge: What’s that line: those that would trade freedom for security deserve neither.

Mark T: you seem to approach things from a Social Darwinist angle – that if we’re not constantly challenged for survival, that we lose our cutting edge skills. It’s not like that at all – people who are secure in their existence operate on a higher level than people who fear for survival. Do not the moneyed classes have better education and higher earnings than the working classes? If cutting edge survival skills are at the fore, why aren’t the lower classes on top?

Dave Budge: That’s a straw man argument.

Mark T: Not hardly Dave – we’ve argued many specifics, but in a larger sphere I have long thought (and said on occasion) that Social Darwinism is the heart of your philosophy.

Oh, wait – you’re going to say that even though I have made the point before, it is still a strawman. So let me be specific: The essence of your philosophy, as I hear you over time, is the idea that people need to be unencumbered by the leveling of government to allow the best of us to prosper so that the rest of us can benefit from the activities of the best of us. You believe in greater good, and differ from my side in that you think we are all better off with minimal interferences by the collective, which weighs us down and stifles our creative forces.

Is that fair? If so, then by implication, without the leveling activity of government, there has to be winners and losers, and we have to let the losers lose so the winners can win, otherwise we are all losers.

Have I misstated your philosophy? Oversimplified, I’m sure, but I think I’ve caught the essence.

Our philosophy on this side merely says that government can provide a safe atmosphere in which we carry on our business – winners still win, but losers don’t perish. It’s a little more humane. And when we all get to share basic goods like education and health care and basic foodstuffs, we are freed to pursue higher activities.

It’s the opposite of Darwinism – we’re not merely surviving – we are all blessed with a healthy life from which to start life’s endeavors.

Please, join in, anyone. I stand to be enlightened. I see Social Darwinism under just about every conservative construct. I think it’s the essential difference in all our debates.