Search the KHIT Blog

Friday, March 21, 2025

Oscar? Golden Globe? Nobel Peace Prize?

Donald Trump, Producer-in-Chief
   
What does it mean to have a President who views his time in office as the biggest, bestest Andrew Lloyd Webber theatrical ever?
On Monday, Donald Trump attended his first board meeting at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts since installing himself as its chairman and firing its leadership. During the session, he surveyed board members about which musical was better—“Les Misérables” or “The Phantom of the Opera”—and reminisced at length about seeing the 1982 Broadway première of “Cats” from a fourth-row seat that he’d been given. “They were treating me good because I was a young star,” he theorized, while strongly implying that he had attended the play with someone other than his wife. He fondly recalled the “gorgeous” young dancers lying onstage and the brilliance of the star singer, Betty Buckley. “Is Betty Buckley still alive?” he asked, mid-soliloquy. (She is, and is not a Trump fan.) The point, such as it was, seemed to be that he wanted to have a lot more “Cats”-style shows at the Kennedy Center, and a lot fewer of the “totally woke” modern productions that one of his fellow maga board members complained about during the meeting. Getting down to business, Trump volunteered to host a revamped version of the Kennedy Center Honors, minus the “radical-left lunatics” who had been given the prestigious award in recent years. This, he assured the board, would be good for the center, since he is “the king of ratings, right?”

We know the President of the United States said all this because someone had the presence of mind to secretly tape this inanity and send it to a reporter at the Times. As scoops go, the news value might have been minimal, but the illumination value was high—this is Trump as he sees himself, a brilliant showman who once dreamed of being a Broadway producer, an avatar of middle-brow theatrics indifferent to the arbiters of good taste and trapped in a vision of America rooted in his nineteen-eighties heyday. If the crowd loved it, then so did he. The great Times photographer Doug Mills captured Trump during his Kennedy Center visit, standing on the balcony of the Presidential box, staring down at the orchestra below in a pose that evoked his all-time favorite Andrew Lloyd Webber show, “Evita.” This was no accident. C-span footage shows that Trump produced the shot himself, directing Mills and others to come and get it. “Do you want a little picture like this?” he called down to the journalists. “Perfect,” one responded… 

- Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

Overbooked yet again.

It's how I roll...
 

This book has jumped the queue as I've been pressing to finish Christopher's riveting new work on LLM AI technology, These Strange New Minds. Mary Anne Franks rocks. I'd hoped to finish her and Chris's books today...

Then I opened my inbox this morning when I got up.


I'd forgetten that Who Is Government was on pre-order (I am a long-time insatiable Michael Lewis FanBoy).
After Donald Trump won his first presidential election, I had one of the strangest experiences I’ve ever had as a writer. The federal government had set aside a big pot of money for the candidates of both parties to staff their presidential transition teams. Trump and Hillary Clinton had both built massive teams of people ready to enter the 15 big federal departments and hundreds of smaller federal agencies to learn whatever was happening inside. A thousand or so Obama officials were waiting for them, along with briefings that had taken them six months to prepare. But then, days after the election, Trump simply fired the 500 or so people on his transition team. “Chris, you and I are so smart that we can leave the victory party two hours early and do the transition ourselves,” he told a perplexed Chris Christie, who’d assembled the team.

Then he appointed Rick Perry as his secretary of energy. In his own presidential campaign, Perry had called for the Energy Department’s elimination—and was forced, at his Senate confirmation hearings, to acknowledge that he’d had no real idea of what went on inside the Energy Department, but now that he’d spent a few days looking into it, he really did not want to eliminate it. At that moment, it became clear that none of these people, newly in charge of the United States government, had the faintest idea what it did. (The Energy Department, among its other critical functions, manages our nuclear weapons.) And they weren’t alone! I didn’t really have any clue what went on inside the department, either. People capable of ruining panel discussions and dinner parties with their steady stream of opinions about American politics were totally flummoxed by the simplest questions about American government…

Our government—as opposed to our elected officials—has no talent for telling its own story. On top of every federal agency sit political operatives whose job is not to reveal and explain the good work happening beneath them but to prevent any of their employees from embarrassing the president. The PR wing of the federal government isn’t really allowed to play offense, just a grinding prevent defense. And the sort of people who become civil servants—the characters profiled in this book—tend not to want or seek attention.

And, finally, there is the stereotype of “the government worker.” We all have in our heads this intractable picture: The nine-to-fiver living off the taxpayer who adds no value and has no energy and somehow still subverts the public will.

You never know what effect any piece of writing will have. Writers write the words, but readers decide their meaning. My vague sense is that most readers of these stories have come away with feelings both of hope (these civic-minded people are still among us) and dread (we’re letting something precious slip away). My own ambition for The Post series and this book was that they would subvert the stereotype of the civil servant. The typecasting has always been lazy and stupid, but increasingly, it’s deadly. Even as writers grow rich proving it wrong.

Given our current Trump/MAGA/DOGE shitstorm, this stuff is all acutely timely.
 
 
OUR FABULIST-IN-CHIEF THIS MORNING, WHINING ONCE AGAIN ON HIS "TRUTH SOCIAL" ABOUT OUR JUDICIAL BRANCH.
"This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President - He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!" Trump wrote. "I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!"

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
 
Saw this author interviewed on PBS Newshour last night.
 
This book is the story of a largely under-the-radar legal movement that is weaponizing the obscure field of libel law—a campaign whose growing momentum has closely tracked the country’s increasing flirtations with authoritarianism.

At first glance, libel law might seem an unlikely venue for a battle with high stakes for American democracy…
Yeah. At first blush, his book coheres nicely with Mary Anne Franks'.
 
ERRATUM
 
Been watching daily equities markets fluctuations lately (like a lot of folks). Found this a bit interesting.
 

Trump's "Truth Social" (DJT) and Musk's TESLA. I overlaid the dark grey negativeely sloping approximate "trendline" starting on Inauguration Day. Had I the raw data, I'm guessing I could compute a linear Pearson-R of perhaps ~ 0.9. These two DOGE BFFs fully deserve each other.
____
 
UPDATE


Her book is killer.
_____
 
UPDATE: THE DAY IN STUPID
 
 
Okeee Dokeee, then.
 
Stay tuned...
_________
  

Monday, March 17, 2025

Musk Rat Love


This one gets the full five violins.

Friday, March 14, 2025

Oaf of Office update.

Donald Trump tells "His" DOJ that ANY investigations or critical media coverage of him are presumptively illegal and must be aggressively prosecuted.
   


FULL TRANSCRIPT

Tuesday, March 11, 2025

Cognition in "Strange New Minds."

Are AI LLMs approaching true "sentience?"
   
Released today.
 
The Amazon blurb:
An insider look at the Large Language Models (LLMs) that are revolutionizing our relationship to technology, exploring their surprising history, what they can and should do for us today, and where they will go in the future—from an AI pioneer and neuroscientist

In this accessible, up-to-date, and authoritative examination of the world’s most radical technology, neuroscientist and AI researcher Christopher Summerfield explores what it really takes to build a brain from scratch. We have entered a world in which disarmingly human-like chatbots, such as ChatGPT, Claude and Bard, appear to be able to talk and reason like us - and are beginning to transform everything we do. But can AI ‘think’, 'know' and ‘understand’? What are its values? Whose biases is it perpetuating? Can it lie and if so, could we tell? Does their arrival threaten our very existence?

These Strange New Minds charts the evolution of intelligent talking machines and provides us with the tools to understand how they work and how we can use them. Ultimately, armed with an understanding of AI’s mysterious inner workings, we can begin to grapple with the existential question of our age: have we written ourselves out of history or is a technological utopia ahead?
 

SCIENCE MAGAZINE REVIEW
In These Strange New Minds, cognitive neuroscientist and artificial intelligence (AI) safety specialist Christopher Summerfield presents a wide-ranging overview of AI for nonspecialists, focusing on what the technology really is, what it might do, and whether it should be feared. We no longer live in “a world where humans alone generate knowledge,” writes Summerfield. Machines possessing this potential will soon occupy custodial positions in society, he maintains (1). His book takes on six broad questions: How did we get here? What is a language model? Do language models think? What should a language model say? What could a language model do? And, are we all doomed?

Summerfield is a philosophical empiricist who argues that “the meaning of language depends on its evidentiary basis.” He is also a functionalist who believes that “it is perfectly possible for the same computational principle to be implemented in radically different physical substrates” and a materialist who sees the mind’s activity as identical to “neural computation.” But does he believe that AI machines think like humans do, or just that they appear to?...

...In the book’s final section, Summerfield turns to whether the technology will doom or deliver humankind. Here, he begins by discussing computer scientist Rich Sutton’s assertion that humankind should already be planning for the inevitable and great “succession” as AI machines “take over.” Neither AI successionists nor its antagonists have much to offer compared with those “whose core members are rooted in the AI safety community, [who] believe that there is an urgent need for AI to be tightly regulated precisely because it is so potent a tool,” argues Summerfield.

Existential risk groups have alternatively called for AI to be widely and publicly paused or for large government and private investments to design AI monitoring and countermeasures. So far, little headway has been made in either direction, but Summerfield’s book offers nonspecialists a good introduction to the issues and some hope that sound efforts in AI safety may see the light of day.
Just getting started. 

I'd like to get Shannon Valor's take on this book.
 

DR. SUMMERFIELD
 
MORE:
Whether or not we are on a pathway to building AI systems that figure out the deepest mysteries of the universe, these more mundane forms of assistance are round the corner. It also seems likely that the main medium by which most people currently seek information – an internet search engine – will soon seem as quaint as the floppy disk or the fax machine. ChatGPT is already integrated into the search engine Bing, and it surely won’t be long before Google and others follow suit, augmenting page search with conversational skills. As these changes occur, they will directly touch the lives of everyone on the planet with internet access – more than five billion people and counting – and are sure to upend the global economy in ways that nobody can quite predict. And this is all going to happen soon – on a timeframe of months or years, not decades. It’s going to happen to you and me.

The new world I’ve described might sound like quite a blast. Imagine having access to AI systems that act as a sort of personal assistant – at your digital beck and call – much more cheaply than the human equivalent, a luxury that today only CEOs and film stars can afford. We would all like an AI to handle the boring bits of life – helping us schedule meetings, switch utility provider, submit our tax returns on time. But there are serious uncertainties ahead. By allowing AI systems to become the ultimate repositories for human knowledge, we devolve to them stewardship of what is true or false, and what is right or wrong. What role will humans still play in a world where AI systems generate and share most knowledge on our behalf?

Of course, ever since humans began to exchange ideas, they have found ways to weaponize dissemination – from the first acts of deception or slander among the pre-industrial hunter-gatherer crew to the online slough of misinformation, toxicity, and polemic that the internet has become today. If they are not properly trained, machines with language risk greatly amplifying these harms, and adding new ones to boot. The perils of a world in which AI has authority over human knowledge may exceed the promise of unbounded information access. How do we know when an LLM is telling the truth? How can we be sure that they will not perpetuate the subtle biases with which much of our language is inflected, to the detriment of those who are already least powerful in society? What if they are used as a tool for persuasion, to shepherd large groups of people towards discriminatory or dangerous views? And when people disagree, whose values should LLMs represent? What happens if large volumes of AI-generated content – news, commentary, fiction, and images – come to dominate the infosphere? How will we know who said what, or what actually happened? Are we on the brink of writing ourselves out of history?

Summerfield, Christopher. These Strange New Minds: How AI Learned to Talk and What It Means (pp. 7-8). (Function). Kindle Edition. 
 
 CHRISTOPHER SUMMERFIELD SPEAKS
 

BLASTS FROM MY BLOG PAST
 
 I searched back in the blog for a look at what I'd posted a devade or so ago on "Artificial Intelligence."
 
Fairly quaint.
 
Stay tuned...
_________
  

Thursday, March 6, 2025

If you're not "Outraged,"

you've not been paying attention.
 

Science Magazine rreview rcommendation. On deck. Dr. Gray is all over it
 
Brings to mind Frank Bruni's book The Age of Grievance I cited last July, along with some other topically relevant works. 

UPDATE
 
I finished Kurt's book. It could scarcely be more timely, given current chaotic events. From the Science Magazine review:
Navigating conflict is difficult in the best of circumstances. It becomes even harder when our disagreements are deeply rooted in opposing moral convictions about the directions in which our collective lives are moving. When these tensions are embedded in contexts involving existential threats such as a changing climate that brings devastating storms or low wages and high prices for everything from grocery staples to health care and housing, fighting naturally erupts over the best way to fix a broken system. Political polarization seems inevitable.

In his compelling book, Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground, moral psychologist Kurt Gray uses stories and science to help readers understand why people are so angry at each other about almost everything. The reason, in his view? They feel threatened. They are afraid of what the future holds for them and for those they love. They feel as though the things that might ease their daily struggles are being ignored or even mocked by “the other side.”…
Dr. Gray is one busy research scholar. Impressive.
 
Click
Click

About the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding
Political intolerance is high. People dread turning on the news and discussing politics at the dinner table. This intolerance not only poisons our everyday interactions, but also imperils the health of democracies. How do we increase tolerance and civility? Some scientific work has examined how to bridge divides across people, but it is often scattered into disconnected disciplines, and current funding climates make it difficult to create momentum. The Center for the Science of Moral Understanding seeks to unite this work and catalyze a new science of moral understanding. The CSMU will then translate these new discoveries into societal change, creating a set of empirically based ways of increasing tolerance.

The Center harnesses a key insight—that much political disagreement is moral disagreement. To increase tolerance and civility, we need to understand the nature of moral judgment and the interpersonal processes that transform divergent moral judgments into conflict. The Center therefore connects moral and social psychology with related disciplines of neuroscience, political science, sociology, history, philosophy, economics, and legal studies.

Of particular timely relevance:
 

'eh?

Five stars.
 
UPDATE: QUICK TANGENTIALLY RELEVANT DIVERGENCE
The qualification of the noun "liberties" by the adjective "personal" is unfounded. Any qualification is unfounded. This particular one suggests that we can become free people without society, which is absolutely not true. We all begin life as helpless infants. Whether we can become free or not depends on circumstances beyond our control. No amount of declaiming "personal liberty" will create the conditions in which a baby grows up with the capacities and structures needed to be a free person. That effort to create a person must be social, beginning with the parents, and extending to friends, teachers, child-care workers, and others. A child needs a special kind of time at a special time of life, and that time will only exist if we recognize that the entire situation is about freedom and that freedom requires cooperation. If we want liberty, in other words, we cannot limit ourselves to the personal. The example of the newborn is important, because it is what we all share, but also because it suggests a truth that continues throughout life. In one way or other, we are always vulnerable, and our ability to be free will always depend on cooperation.

The use of the plural "liberties" (rather than "liberty" or "freedom" in the singular) is not an extension but an unwelcome qualification, in fact a limitation. The use of the plural suggests that there is a finite list of specific liberties, rather than freedom for all people as such. This indicates that liberty is constrained for people. Interestingly, no such constraint is placed upon the inhuman abstraction that also figures in Jeff Bezos's editorial line, "the free market." What has unqualified freedom, according to Bezos? Not people. The market. And this, as we shall see, is not only incoherent but authoritarian.
From Timothy Snyder's Substack.
___
 
SOME OTHER RELATED POSTS
Also. how about "Mental Immunity?"
 
What?
 
 
___
 
KURT GRAY SUMS UP
Moral Understanding
Moral understanding is hard won, and can be easily lost, especially because of the allure of the three myths debunked in this book. Myth 1 is that humans are more predators than prey. This misconception about human nature poisons our perceptions of our political opponents, who we wrongly assume want to watch the world burn. Fortunately, the truth is that people are more prey than predators; we are less motivated to destroy and more motivated to protect ourselves and society.

Myth 2 touches on the idea that people with different politics have deeply different minds. One theory suggests that liberals care only about direct physical and emotional harm and the harm of unfairness, while conservatives care about these concerns plus “harmless” morality like loyalty to group members, respecting authorities, and protecting purity. But the notion of “harmless wrongs” is a myth, grounded in the misconception that harm is an objective fact. It is not.

When it comes to our moral psychology, harm is a matter of perception. Everyone’s moral judgments are grounded in intuitive perceptions of victimization, and moral differences arise from different assumptions about who or what is especially vulnerable to victimization. Despite our different moral stances, this shared focus on harm provides common ground with our opponents, which can help us bridge divides.

To best harness this common ground and connect across political disagreement, we need to let go of a third myth: that facts are the best way to achieve moral understanding in contentious conversations. Ever since the Enlightenment, facts have (understandably) held a privileged position in our society, but our minds are better suited to connect over stories, especially those that center on suffering. Sharing stories of harm is more effective at bridging divides than launching statistics at our opponents. When we combine this advice with practitioner-tested steps for having better dialogues—connect, invite, and validate—conversations with political opponents go much better than expected.

This book has been about the psychology of our moral disagreements, because I believe that understanding the mind is crucial to understanding our human condition—and we are all humans, no matter our moral positions. When we appreciate how our minds work, it is easier to sit with the central tension of moral conflict: that other people can disagree with you and still be good people. Like my family in Nebraska, people can vote for different candidates and still be caring, compassionate, and moral people.

Despite having different moral convictions, people on the other side still care about their loved ones and still feel threatened by the modern world. In fact, it is because people care about their loved ones and feel threatened that they hold fast to their moral convictions. People with different politics might disagree with you about how best to protect society from harm, but we all genuinely care about preventing victimization.

Whether in politics or everyday life, most of us are trying our best to uphold morality. It can be hard to remember this, especially when someone insults you on social media, comparing your side to the Nazis—or when someone corners your car in a dark loading dock, like when I was a teenager on the way to the movies that night. But everyone—even the man who slapped me around—wakes up in the morning striving to do right. Each of us shares a human nature built upon detecting threat and a morality focused on preventing harm, and each of us wants our experiences of suffering to be heard.

It is true that many of us today are outraged. But most of us want to be less outraged, and understanding the truth about our moral minds will help.

Gray, Kurt. Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground (pp. 366-368). (Function). Kindle Edition.
You really should buy this book and study it closely. 

More to say shortly...
_________
  

Monday, March 3, 2025

Changing the name of the Gulf in 2025

The way things are now going, by the time this bill were ever to pass into law, the Trump C-note may well be worth 5 bucks. Charitably.

Jeffrey Sachs Roaring Ukraine Speech At EU Parliament; Blasts U.S., Says 'Not Putin's Puppet'
Professor Jeffrey Sachs recently addressed European Parliament on February 19, 2025, with a stark warning: being a friend to the United States can be "fatal." Speaking at "The Geopolitics of Peace" event, hosted by Michael von der Schulenburg, Sachs emphasized the need for Europe to adopt a truly independent foreign policy. Sachs' statement was a call to action, urging Europe to develop a foreign policy that's grounded in reality.  Sachs' words echo his previous criticisms of US foreign policy, particularly regarding the Ukraine conflict. He has argued that the US has recklessly expanded NATO's reach, ignoring Russia's concerns and fueling the devastating war.
  

An hour & 40 minutes of bracing contrarianism.

ERRATUM

 
Yeah, right, problem solved.

UPDATE
 
PUTIN'S RASPUTIN
 
From The New Yorker
A long-read. Worth every minute.
 
MORE ON JEFFREY SACHS
 
In this sobering analysis of American foreign policy under Trump, the award-winning economist calls for a new approach to international engagement.
 
The American Century began in 1941 and ended in 2017, on the day of President Trump’s inauguration. The subsequent turn toward nationalism and “America first” unilateralism did not made America great. It announced the abdication of our responsibilities in the face of environmental crises, political upheaval, mass migration, and other global challenges. As a result, America no longer dominates geopolitics or the world economy as it once did.

In this incisive and passionate book, Jeffrey D. Sachs provides the blueprint for a new foreign policy that embraces global cooperation, international law, and aspirations for worldwide prosperity. He argues that America’s approach to the world must shift from military might and wars of choice to a commitment to shared objectives of sustainable development.
 
A New Foreign Policy explores both the danger of the “America first” mindset and the possibilities for a new way forward, proposing timely and achievable plans to foster global economic growth, reconfigure the United Nations for the twenty-first century, and build a multipolar world that is prosperous, peaceful, fair, and resilient.


ON DECK

Stay tuned... 
_________
  

Friday, February 28, 2025

One of these leaders has spent more than 3 years surviving unrelenting military assaults by Putin's Russia.

The other is loudmouth bully & draft dodger Donald Trump.
 
Of the many bizarre and uncomfortable moments during today’s Oval Office meeting between Donald Trump, J. D. Vance, and Volodymyr Zelensky—during which Trump finally shattered the American alliance with Ukraine—one was particularly revealing: What, a reporter asked, would happen if the cease-fire Trump is trying to negotiate were to be violated by Russia? “What if anything? What if a bomb drops on your head right now?” Trump spat back, as if Russia violating a neighbor’s sovereignty were the wildest and most unlikely possibility, rather than a frequently recurring event… - Jonathan Chait
I could scarcely be more appalled today.
It Was an Ambush
Today marked one of the grimmest days in the history of American diplomacy.
By Tom Nichols

Leave aside, if only for a moment, the utter boorishness with which President Donald Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance treated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House today. Also leave aside the spectacle of American leaders publicly pummeling a friend as if he were an enemy. All of the ghastliness inflicted on Zelensky today should not obscure the geopolitical reality of what just happened: The president of the United States ambushed a loyal ally, presumably so that he can soon make a deal with the dictator of Russia to sell out a European nation fighting for its very existence.

Trump’s advisers have already declared the meeting a win for “putting America first,” and his apologists will likely spin and rationalize this shameful moment as just a heated conversation—the kind of thing that in Washington-speak used to be called a “frank and candid exchange.” But this meeting reeked of a planned attack, with Trump unloading Russian talking points on Zelensky (such as blaming Ukraine for risking global war), all of it designed to humiliate the Ukrainian leader on national television and give Trump the pretext to do what he has indicated repeatedly he wants to do: side with Russian President Vladimir Putin and bring the war to an end on Russia’s terms. Trump is now reportedly considering the immediate end of all military aid to Ukraine because of Zelensky’s supposed intransigence during the meeting…

Wednesday, February 26, 2025

Trump convenes his first second-term cabinet "meeting."

After an hour of random self-aggrandizing Acting Celebrity Apprentice POTUS babble, CNN cut away.
   
Somenone, please buy Elon Musk a dress shirt and tie. And, please, dude take that MAGA hat off.
 
 
Seriously?
 
Back to some real world. Katherine Stewart's timely new book is out.
 
 
A quick cite from the Preface, then onto some relevant current events.
PREFACE
…The big story of our time is the rise of an antidemocratic political movement in the United States. Like any such movement, this one is diverse and complicated. It brings together a collection of people and ideas that in ordinary circumstances would not dream of sharing a bed. It is united in its profound rejection of the Enlightenment ideals on which the American republic was founded, and it represents the most serious threat to American democracy since the Civil War…

Abraham Lincoln had it right when he said that the United States is dedicated to a proposition. The American idea, as he saw it, is the familiar one articulated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. It says that all people are created equal; that a free people in a pluralistic society may govern themselves; that they do so through laws deliberated in public, grounded in appeals to reason, and applied equally to all; and that they establish these laws through democratic representation in government. In the centuries after 1776, in its better moments, the United States exported this revolutionary creed and inspired people around the world to embrace their freedom.

But in recent years a political movement has emerged that fundamentally does not believe in the American idea. It claims that America is dedicated not to a proposition but to a particular religion and culture. It asserts that an insidious and alien elite has betrayed and abandoned the nation’s sacred heritage. It proposes to “redeem” America, and it acts on the extreme conviction that any means are justified in such a momentous project. It takes for granted that certain kinds of Americans have a right to rule, and that the rest have a duty to obey. No longer casting the United States as a beacon of freedom, it exports this counterrevolutionary creed through alliances with leaders and activists who are themselves hostile to democracy. This movement has captured one of the nation’s two major political parties, and some of its leading thinkers explicitly model their ambitions on corrupt and illiberal regimes abroad that render education, the media, and the corporate sector subservient to a one-party authoritarian state.

Stewart, Katherine. Money, Lies, and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy (pp. 2-3). Kindle Edition.

Ch 11: Exporting the Counterrevolution
In the decades immediately following the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the new American republic became the modern world’s first great exporter of democratic revolution. As America’s founders watched the strategic alliances between priests and kings tumble before the advance of ideas of human equality, individual rights, and representative government in France, Haiti, Greece, the Spanish colonies, and eventually much of Europe, they were exultant. “From that bright spark which first illumed these lands / See Europe kindling, as the blaze expands,” wrote Philip Freneau, the so-called poet of the American Revolution. His friend Thomas Jefferson was equally pleased. “This ball of liberty, I believe most piously, is now so well in motion that it will roll round the globe, at least the enlightened part of it, for light and liberty go together,” he wrote. “It is our glory that we first put it into motion.”

Today, however, sectors of the American right have become exporters of the antidemocratic counterrevolution. Not satisfied with their efforts to roll back individual rights in the United States and replace democratic pluralism with sectarianism and authoritarian forms of governance, America’s Christian nationalists have pushed their ideas and agendas out to other countries around the world. Joining them in the effort are a host of “antiwoke” culture warriors from the New Right along with the white supremacists, men’s rights activists, New Traditionalists, and others they inspire. Some groups in those other countries have proved receptive to the new ideologies. A global antidemocratic reaction has emerged that in turn contributes to the counterrevolutionary process in America.

The axis around which a sector of the global antidemocratic reaction now turns is an extraordinary alliance between a dominant wing of the Republican Party in the U.S. and the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. Only twenty years ago, the same Republican Party was willing to go to war to overthrow a dictatorship in Iraq and (supposedly) promote democracy. Yet the faction of the Republican Party that has mortgaged itself to Donald Trump balked at providing relatively small-scale aid to Ukraine as that country attempted to fend off a brutal and unprovoked Russian invasion. And even while Vladimir Putin continues to crush democracy in his home country and abroad, with assassinations of journalists and political opponents, widespread imprisonment, and kleptocratic arrangements, to say nothing of the suspiciously convenient “suicides” and “accidents” of Russian business, political, and military leaders, the right wing of the Republican Party hails him as a hero and a strong leader. To be sure, after months of pressure from the White House, House Speaker Mike Johnson managed to squeak out approval for aid to Ukraine in April 2024, bypassing opposition of a number of Republicans. And yet out on the far right, among the kind of people who contribute to Claremont Institute publications and who now form the “brain trust” for Donald Trump and other Republican leaders, one can hear Ukraine’s resistance to Russia described as a “woke war.” It is important to note that Russia and other hostile foreign powers have avidly targeted sectors of the American left in order to intensify and exploit divisions in U.S. society. This activity and its consequences are grossly underappreciated… (pp. 213-214). 
Just for starters.
 
See some prior posts of mine apropos of "Christian Nationalism."
 
Also, the word "Evangelical." And, Matthew D. Taylor's fine book on the topic. Hmmm... one more for now: "Claremont College," anyone?
 
 
More shortly...
_________
  

Monday, February 24, 2025

Thursday, February 20, 2025

The New Whirled Order

 Yeah. Below, a back-to-reality break:
 
The 16th NATO Supreme Allied Commander, James Stavridis attended the US Naval Academy at Annapolis, and spent 37 years in the Navy, rising to the rank of 4-star Admiral. He oversaw NATO operations in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, the Balkans, and counter piracy off the coast of Africa. He led the US Southern Command in Miami, charged with military operations through Latin America.

He served as senior military assistant to the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Defense. He led the Navy’s premier operational think tank for innovation, Deep Blue, immediately after the 9/11 attacks. He also commanded a Destroyer Squadron and a Carrier Strike Group, both in combat. He was the longest serving Combatant Commander in recent US history.

Highly decorated, his awards include the Battenberg Cup for commanding the top ship in the Atlantic Fleet and the Navy League John Paul Jones Award for Inspirational leadership. Following his military career, he served as Dean of his alma mater The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he earned his PhD. In 2016, he was vetted for Vice President by Secretary Hillary Clinton, and subsequently invited to discuss a cabinet position with President Donald Trump.

A best-selling author, Stavridis has published twelve books on leadership, character, risk, the oceans, maritime affairs, and Latin America, and hundreds of articles in leading journals. His most recent books are To Risk It All: Nine Conflicts and The Crucible of Decision, 2034: A Novel of the Next World War, a New York Times bestseller, and 2054: A Novel.

Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and Chief International Security Analyst for NBC News. He is Partner and Vice Chair, Global Affairs of The Carlyle Group and Chair of the Board of Trustees, Rockefeller Foundation.
 Admiral Stavridis spoke to us last night at the latest Baltimore Speakers Series event.. He was fabulous, a real patriot, accomplished military scholar, and brilliant, humorous, self-deprecating mind.

And then there's this ketamine-addled DOGE dipshit, appearing at CPAC.
 
 
He's cutting federal spending, get it?
 
 
ON A DEADLY SERIOUS NOTE
 
In this book, I aim to define freedom. The task begins with rescuing the word from overuse and abuse. I worry that, in my own country, the United States, we speak of freedom without considering what it is. Americans often have in mind the absence of something: occupation, oppression, or even government. An individual is free, we think, when the government is out of the way. Negative freedom is our common sense.

To be sure, it is tempting to think of liberty as us against the world, which the notion of negative freedom allows us to do. If the barriers are the only problem, then all must be right with us. That makes us feel good. We think that we would be free if not for a world outside that does us wrong. But is the removal of something in the world really enough to liberate us? Is it not as important, perhaps even more important, to add things?

If we want to be free, we will have to affirm, not just deny. Sometimes we will have to destroy, but more often we will need to create. Most often we will need to adapt both the world and ourselves, on the basis of what we know and value. We need structures, just the right ones, moral as well as political. Virtue is an inseparable part of freedom.

“Stone Walls do not a Prison make / Nor Iron bars a Cage”—said the poet. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. Oppression is not just obstruction but the human intention behind it. In Ukraine’s Donetsk, an abandoned factory became an art lab; under Russian occupation, the same building became a torture facility. A school basement, as in Yahidne, can be a concentration camp.

Early Nazi concentration camps, for that matter, were in bars, hotels, and castles. The first permanent one, Dachau, was in an abandoned factory. Auschwitz had been a Polish military base meant to defend people from a German attack. Kozelsk, a Soviet POW camp where Polish officers were held before their execution, had been a monastery—the one where Fyodor Dostoevsky, in The Brothers Karamazov, set the dialogue with the famous question: If God is dead, is everything permitted?

No larger force makes us free, nor does the absence of such a larger force. Nature gives us a chance to be free, nothing less, nothing more. We are told that we are “born free”: untrue. We are born squalling, attached to an umbilical cord, covered in a woman’s blood. Whether we become free depends upon the actions of others, upon the structures that enable those actions, upon the values that enliven those structures—and only then upon a flicker of spontaneity and the courage of our own choices.

The structures that hinder or enable are physical and moral. It matters how we speak and think about freedom. Liberty begins with de-occupying our minds from the wrong ideas. And there are right and wrong ideas. In a world of relativism and cowardice, freedom is the absolute among absolutes, the value of values. This is not because freedom is the one good thing to which all others must bow. It is because freedom is the condition in which all the good things can flow within us and among us.

Nor is it because freedom is a vacuum left by a dead God or an empty world. Freedom is not an absence but a presence, a life in which we choose multiple commitments and realize combinations of them in the world. Virtues are real, as real as the starry heavens; when we are free, we learn them, exhibit them, bring them to life. Over time, our choices among virtues define us as people of will and individuality.

When we assume that freedom is negative, the absence of this or that, we presume that removing a barrier is all that we have to do to be free. To this way of thinking, freedom is the default condition of the universe, brought to us by some larger force when we clear the way. This is naïve.

Americans are told that we were given freedom by our Founding Fathers, our national character, or our capitalist economy. None of this is true. Freedom cannot be given. It is not an inheritance. We call America a “free country,” but no country is free. Noting a difference between the rhetoric of the oppressors and the oppressed, the dissident Eritrean poet Y. F. Mebrahtu reports that “they talk about the country, we talk about the people.” Only people can be free. If we believe something else makes us free, we never learn what we must do. The moment you believe that freedom is given, it is gone.

We Americans tend to think that freedom is a matter of things being cleared away, and that capitalism does that work for us. It is a trap to believe in this or any other external source of freedom. If we associate freedom with outside forces, and someone tells us that the outside world delivers a threat, we sacrifice liberty for safety. This makes sense to us, because in our hearts we were already unfree. We believe that we can trade freedom for security. This is a fatal mistake.

Freedom and security work together. The preamble of the Constitution instructs that “the blessings of liberty” are to be pursued alongside “the general welfare” and “the common defense.” We must have liberty and safety. For people to be free, they must feel secure, especially as children. They must have a chance to know one another and the world. Then, as they become free people, they decide what risks to take, and for what reasons.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelens’kyi did not tell his people that they needed to trade liberty for safety. He told them that he was staying in the country. After my visit to Yahidne, I spoke to him in his office in Kyiv, behind the sandbags. He called de-occupation a chance to restore both security and freedom. He said that the “deprivation of freedom was insecurity,” and that “insecurity was the deprivation of freedom.”…

Snyder, Timothy. On Freedom (pp. xii-xv). (Function). Kindle Edition.
I read a ton of Timothy Snyder. Highly recommended.
_________