Biden and the 25th amendment

To me an interesting possibility is what would have happened if Biden's condition had gotten so bad that his cabinet invoked the 25th amendment before the Democratic convention. Would they have found a way to oust him without his consent? When that amendment is invoked, as long as he holds his ground and insists he is able to serve, the only way to remove him is by two-thirds vote of both House and Senate -- a more difficult requirement to meet that impeachment, which requires only a simple majority in the House. We can very well wonder what the Republicans in control of the U.S. House (or the minority in the Senate large enough to block removal) would have done. Might they have seen a political advantage to retaining as President a man demented to an embarrassing degree?

This could still happen even though Biden has dropped out of the race for re-election. There are still nearly 3 months until election day. Even after the election they could feel that action of a demented president of the opposite party would hurt their case, whoever is to take office in January. The Republicans are infamous for putting their own hold on power above the welfare of the nation.

The nation has at times been led by Presidents who were essentially non-functional -- both Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge for significant chunks of time at the end of their terms. Cabinet officials kept things running. But they were both out of sight and silent. A demented Biden might very well not be out of sight and not deferring to his Cabinet.

Another intriguing possibility is that Biden will resign before the election. It could happen if his mental decline accelerates and he sees that. Could such a resignation also be a wise strategic move for Democrats? It would certainly claim a great deal of attention in the news cycle.

Biden not seeking re-election

I have seen allegations that Biden's decision not to seek re-election was a coup, treated by partisans like Jon Stewart as not even worth a reply. It took at least 30 seconds of Google search for me to find this, actually making the case.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/23/bidens-withdrawal-from-the-presidential-race-is-not-anti-democratic/

Had he stayed in the race, I assume that his lawyers could have seen to it that he was in fact nominated by the convention, since delgates reneging on their pledges would be out of line with the contractual arrangements they made with the Democratic Party. The military was not going to oust him. The Supreme Court would have found no reason to do that. Joe Biden decided to step down and not run. Many pundits viciously attacked him for not stepping down sooner and insisting he would still run and could still beat Trump.

This I think is very unfair. As of today, no one know whether Kamala Harris will beat Trump. If Trump had had a serious decline in his own health, no one knows whether Biden might have beaten Trump. What just about everyone could see in his debate performance -- and his inability in follow-up interviews to show that that had been one bad evening -- was that this guy was not functioning very well, would likely get worse, and that most American voters would not have voted for him. (I would have, even if he were comatose. The 25th Amendment would see to his replacement by the Vice-President, though keep reading.)

Biden could eventually see that with so little support within his party, he could not win, and he decided not to run again. The critics seem to think it's inexcusable that he didn't see it right away. They wanted him to diagnose his own mental decline, and judge it as so much worse than Trump's that it would preclude his election because of what voters could see. I think a man can be forgiven for not seeing that about himself clearly, especially when there is so much at stake and he has wanted something very badly. My main hope was that he could view the tapes of the debate and see how it would look to the voters, but apparently that didn't happen. The delay may actually have worked to the advantage of Democrats, as there was no time for a leadership fight in which competing Democrats would tear each other down. I hope Biden can eventually see that Nancy Pelosi and others did the right thing, though I do not know whether the details of how they urged him to not seek re-election were more excessive or even cruel than necessary.

I have no certainty that Kamala Harris will be a good President if elected. She could make serious mistakes. But one thing of which I am dead certain is this: If she runs for re-election, there will be no concerted effort to disenfranchise voters opposed to her, and if she loses, to concoct slates of fake electors, or for her to stay in office beyond the end of her term. With Donald Trump we had serious reason to worry about all those things. Even if he had been unable to circumvent the 22nd amendment prohibition on more than two terms, we can imagine him putting up his son Donald, Junior for election, winking, and making clear to his follower that he, Donald, would actually be calling all the shots. And having his loyal henchmen make sure the ballots were counted to ensure a victory.

The News is that Science is True -- Religion Being False is a Footnote

I have been an atheist for most of my life. My parents were, and most of my peers for most of my life have been. I toyed with the idea of God only for a few years around my graduation from college. I was intrigued by Quakerism and was aware of unusual mental states that came during meditation or meeting for worship. But it didn't take long for me to decide that everything was going on within my own head.

I had heard of the "New Atheists" for years, and had felt I didn't need to read a book trying to persuade me of something I already believed. But recently I became interested at a secondary level. I have tried to call myself a "friendly atheist", since I think the caricature of "atheist" in the religious mind is someone who is angry and intolerant and scoffs not just at God but any sort of wonder, beauty or humility.

I had thought in recent years that there was no need to try to get a believer to stop believing if they found religion a comfort and lived what those of us in modern times would call "a good life". So were these new atheists being more hostile than necessary? ChatGPT told me the seminal work was "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, so I got it out of the library and read it. Dawkins thinks what's bad about religion (aside from is just being false) is that if you accept people taking anything on faith without protest, it lays the groundwork for a fundamentalism that tramples on other people's rights. He is also concerned with children of Christian denominations who literally believe that the fate of sinners is everlasting torment in hell, leading to unnecessary distress.

In the book Dawkins goes through arguments that were familiar to me such as looking at the proofs people had put forward for the existence of God and dismissing them.

I ended up feeling that the situation was simpler than we often make it out to be, and that an atheist shouldn't need to get into such arguments.

My thesis is that what has changed in the past 500 years or so is the widespread adoption of the scientific method. One notable step along the way was Isaac Newton's elegant laws that explained a great deal of how physical bodies move and behave, including notably gravity.

Before the scientific method, we humans did the best we could in figuring out the world around us and how it worked. Our ability to find true relationships has been a key to our success as a species. If you find a particular kind of grub, mash it and smear its insides on an arrow head, then pierce an animal with the arrow, a poison from within the body of the grub kills the animal. But our ability to find such true relationships carries along with it finding relationships where none exist at all. So among our past beliefs is the idea that there were spirits inhabiting physical objects and animals, that they could do harm, and certain sacrifices were necessary to satisfy the desires of Gods. Not much changed fundamentally as various forms of monotheism arose. There were passionate battles, slaughter and torture as groups with incompatible beliefs confronted one another. Even modern believers presumably think most such conflict was a tragic waste.

But what has emerged over time from the scientific method is a truly astonishing set of discoveries. Many have practical benefit. We can farm better, breed better crop strains, harness metals and make machinery, leading on through physical technology to jet travel and the internet. We discovered public health measures and effective drugs so that very few people die young. The health, cleanliness, abundant food, central heating, and availability of unlimited information and entertainment we in western societies have today would all seem like fantasy to anyone living 300 years ago.

The scientific method operates on the principle of making observations that different people can test and confirm. The double-blind randomized control drug trial is one shining example of what we have created. And it has determined that a great many medical treatments that people thought were effective turned out not to be.

The scientific method has also laid to rest claims of alchemy, phrenology, telepathy, and astrology. I suspect most religious believers would applaud the use of science to debunk false beliefs.

Now, well into the scientific age, we can be skeptical of any claim about the world unless it has been tested scientifically and evidence found for it.

To my knowledge, all mainstream religions hold beliefs about things that happen in the real world, or that happened in the past, that involved divine intervention. Some non-material stuff or thing (likely called "God") made things happen in the observable world. Armed as we are now with the scientific method, the question we should be asking is, What is the evidence for this claim? If there is no evidence, then we should not believe it. Note that science has never proven that alchemy, telepathy and astrology are false. It is possible that they only operate in special circumstances -- perhaps only when no one using the scientific method is paying attention. But the absence of evidence is enough for most of us to decide that they are ideas to be discarded. Claims of "serious" religions deserve the same treatment. And we can confidently say that there is absolutely no evidence in favor of any religion as an explanation of anything.

The burden of proof should be on the believer to come up with some evidence that meets the standards of the scientific method. The reply to any argument of the form, "But how can science explain X?" starts with "There is a great deal that science cannot explain. If you are proposing that your particular religion can explain X, show me some evidence."

There are various ways of thinking about the world. If everyone in your social circle as you are growing up is Christian, you will typically become Christian too. We all rely heavily on the authority of people we trust to determine what is true. You might well decide that determining literal truth is not important to you. However, on any occasion where you decide to explore truth from the perspective of the (immensely successful) scientific method, you will find there is zero evidence for your religion.

Despite people tending to believe what their parents believe, change does happen. We all now believe that the earth revolves around the sun, which is part of one galaxy among billions of galaxies. The Christian Science religion is famous for its belief that health is to be achieved through prayer, not through drugs and medicines. This wasn't an obviously bad idea back in the 19th century when there were few effective medical treatments and some were downright harmful. With the fruits of scientific inquiry in hand it has become a bad idea if your goal is physical health. Religion could and should dwindle to become only a subject for study (albeit a very interesting one) by the fields of history and psychology, both parts of the edifice of science.

The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has offered an explanation for an enormous variety of things that used to mystify us. It seems to occupy a large place in the thinking of fundamentalist believers, who have a passionate conviction that it must be false. But there is nothing special about it from a scientific point of view.

In 1600, it was hard to know what to believe about a great deal of the world. Religions were a reasonable explanation; there were no clearly better ones. In 2024, the scientific method has established its success in explaining a great deal and debunking many superstitions. It is now far and away the best foundation for understanding the world. And while it certainly doesn't explain everything, it does suggest that every religious belief involving something Divine (or even just non-material) is false.

Moving to Northampton

I see from looking at my previous (infrequent) posts that I never talked about moving to Northampton. I moved on August 31st, 2023. The biggest reason was to be near my two daughters and my one granddaughter, who live close by. Cost of living was another factor, where I have a 1-bedroom here for $1400 as opposed to the $2500 my landlord had proposed for the coming year in Waltham. I had lived in the greater Boston area since 1978. (I moved into my Cambridge shared apartment on a Saturday evening of Labor Day weekend, and in those days supermarkets were closed on Sundays and also on holidays -- two days in a row. Remember those days? For 2.5 days I was getting by on what the 7-11 carried.) But after 45 years, there really wasn't anything holding me in Boston any more. I never did take advantage of the cultural opportunities, I had been drifting away from the FUSN community over the course of years, and had hardly any friends in town, and even with them most of the communication was by email, which can be done from anywhere. One small amusing fact is that whenever I moved, it was from one city/town to an adjacent one. Cambridge, Brighton, Brookline, Newton, Watertown, and Waltham. I was in Newton 27 years.

I'm in a condominium building, and have no complaints. And yet it doesn't feel like home.

The last time I felt excited about where I lived was when I moved to 38 California Street in Watertown, back in August of 2016. I had been living in a rather cozy in-law apartment the previous 4 years. It was perfectly adequate but not exciting. But the California Street place was in a converted attic, with high, sloping ceilings, skylights, and an airy feel. It was right by the Watertown falls of the Charles River, and had a lovely view. I enjoyed walking along the Charles on the MDC paths. I like many others was excited at the prospect of our first female president, following two terms of the decent and classy Barack Obama. Donald Trump was repulsive, but he would be soundly defeated and the Republicans taught a lesson about nominating someone like that. But it didn't turn out that way. The afternoon of Tuesday, November 8th was the last sunlight on an era of hope.

For the first few months at California Street, I was aware every day of the falls and the river. That naturally faded with time. Then came Covid, and then the news that the landlady would be selling the place so it was time to move. After 5 years I moved to a one-bedroom place in Waltham. It was adequate, but the landlord was weird and intrusive. At the close of the first year he told me my rent of $1,888 a month had been a special, introductory rate and after lots of back and forth, decided the next year's rent would be $2,200. My daughter Becky volunteered to be an intermediary because I hated dealing with his aggressive style. He suggested I should start paying the higher rent two months before the end of the current lease, and he wanted me to add money to the security deposit -- which is apparently illegal, and Becky talked him out of both. That sort of weirdness. The question became not whether I would leave, but when. I stuck it out one more year. Now there is every reason to think I can stay in this place in Northampton as long as I can live independently. I was anxious about what would happen if the owner sold the condo, and daughter Becky told me I could afford to buy it from her. Owning something was not a goal of mine, but if a place is known and comfortable, I would be happy to do it so I could stay put.

So while I can stay put, it doesn't feel like home. "Home" implies a certain ease and comfort and attachment to place. For me this is just a place to live. I shouldn't make it sound like Donald Trump was the cause of my no longer feeling like a place is home. It was a long, slow process of caring less about that sort of thing.

I suffer from chronic depression, and for some 20 years now it has been pretty well controlled with bupropion and lamotrigine -- but that is not to say I am happy. I try to focus on bright moments, and pass the time with computer games and an active online life. But it would be a stretch to say I am happy.

In other news, I got a hearing aid shortly after moving here. My right ear is so bad that a hearing aid can't help it, but the device in my left ear is good for such things as conversing with people in noisy places. One thing I didn't expect, though, was that I found the improved hearing at higher frequency sounds to be unpleasant. I only wear the hearing aid when I go out -- which might be once or twice a week. Even listening to music at home, I enjoy it more without the hearing aid. This is apparently a rather common reaction.