Sunday, August 18, 2024

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.



Thursday, July 18, 2024

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.




Saturday, January 13, 2024

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.


Wednesday, September 20, 2023

Being honest about capital punishment


I'm strongly opposed to capital punishment, though not as passionately as a lot of "liberals".


Over the years I've read a series of articles about how the victims may suffer during execution, or how things can go wrong and get botched. Here was the latest to come to my attention:


https://apnews.com/article/death-penalty-alabama-nitrogen-hypoxia-3aa41ad4da3f719e9f06425798e1c6a5


It deals with the perils of a proposed new execution method which involves having the condemned breathe pure nitrogen.


What the articles never mention is that the medical technology exists to execute people with zero risk of getting botched or feeling pain. We routinely give the necessary painkillers to those with terminal cancer so that they do not suffer, and medical ethics allows giving a dose that is sure to eliminate the pain even as it becomes virtually certain that the medicines will kill them. The same technology could be used to execute people. There are probably a dozen equally effective variants.


The reason these methods are not used is the refusal of the medical profession to cooperate in carrying out executions -- to the point where those who do cooperate face professional sanctions. I believe I read that certain drug makers have prohibited the use of their products for carrying out executions. Any individual helping to carry out executions risks stigma from liberals who discover this. It reminds me to some extent of the perils that doctors who provide abortions face from passionately anti-abortion zealots, though I am not aware of any capital punishment collaborators fearing for their lives.


As a result, the ones carrying out the execution may understandably be "stressed out" -- at least one article mentioned this. And stressed out people are more likely to make mistakes.


A refusal to participate in any way in carrying out executions is morally defensible. Seeing that individual victims do not suffer is less important than the goal of doing everything they can to make capital punishment politically less appealing.


But it would seem far more honest to explain as part of the story that the danger arises not inherently from the technical problem of how to kill people but from the fact that those who could effortlessly solve those problems have chosen not to participate. Capital punishment proponents probably would cite this as a reason to discount stories of botched executions -- it's the fault of those anti-capital punishment elites, not an inherent problem with capital punishment. It's not a political argument those opposed to capital punishment would like to get into, but it's true. If you see the capital punishment question as a war, where the only goal is to prevail politically, this is the choice you would expect to see. If on the other hand you have the quaint view that issues should be discussed honestly with a goal of achieving understanding, it's a truth we would do better to discuss honestly.


For some historical context, it is interesting that the guillotine came into use in France in the late 18th century as part of this new idea that people being executed should not be made to suffer, but the desire was simply to end their lives. Before that time, "breaking on the wheel" was a common method. And it interests me today that no matter how much some group reviles a class of criminals, no one seriously argues for torture, and especially not public torture. This seems like a lasting shift in values that came with the Enlightenment that is not in danger of being reversed (unlike much of the rest of it).



Monday, August 14, 2023

Illusions That Make Us Dread Death


In the usual course of events, children and teenagers contemplate the big questions of life, determine they have no good answers, and get on with the mundane business of living. This most definitely includes death. We will all die, there's nothing we can do about this inevitability, so wisdom suggests there is little benefit to fretting over what you cannot change. Of course we can and do put considerable effort into extending our lives and improving their quality by way of exercise, diet, and medicines, to name a few. But we know we will fail in the end.

I feel a bit self-conscious writing a post on this subject. I was a teenager a long time ago -- why dig into the inevitable again? Didn't I grow up? And yet while well-adjusted people don't spend much effort on the inevitability of death, some people may recognize that there is inside of us a slow small feeling of dread when our thoughts pass that way. One way I heard it phrased was that no matter how perfect our life might be at any given time, the worm in the heart of the apple remains -- we will die.

I think the dread is fed by some illusions. I'm hoping that by finding them and considering them, I can tame a bit of my own dread when it surfaces, and if it helps any others, so much the better.

1. Whatever vestige of a person remains after death has no existence over the course of time.

If you are buried in a graveyard in the usual fashion, your corpse lies in the silence and darkness, several feet underground. It's tempting to think of that corpse as being "you" -- where else would you be? When scientists perform sensory deprivation experiments, the subjects ultimately feel very distressed. So the idea that you are lying in a box underground, getting no information from the world outside, which continues without you, even for days and weeks (let alone millenia or eternity) sounds like torture, and so it would be. But a corpse looks and feels completely bereft of life. It is not a person. People who know they will be cremated may be protected somewhat from this illusion since cremation so clearly creates something that has no resemblance to living flesh.

I have spent very little time with corpses, but my sense is that concepts like "brain death" may have good scientific backing, but there is a much more certain and unmistakable change. There comes a point when the heart stops beating, blood stops circulating, and all of the tissues in the body die. Not long after, the smallest child can plainly see that this is no longer a human being. It is a collection of dead tissue -- as inert as mud or stone. That is what gets buried, not a person.

But even if you don't think of yourself as located in a grave, you are tempted to think of yourself as located somewhere. Perhaps you can't say exactly where. It might be in some other dimension of reality. But a critical question, I think, is whether you conceive of time passing. Time passing while any vestige of "you" is in this state would be a form of torture. For some comfort in contradicting that idea, you can consider how things were in the millenia before you were born. Were you bored? No, you didn't exist. And the key concept to resist this illusion of existing over time is to truly get that you cease to exist. As living beings we typically do wonder about what the future will bring in the course of years or even centuries. People who think in grander terms may think about the sun turning into a red giant or in some other way making life on earth completely impossible, or go on to think about entropy creating a cold fog of dust after billions of years. But as those events unfold, there will be no "you" tucked away somewhere as it happens. You won't exist, and your nonexistence lacks every vestige of a temporal dimension.

2. Frustration about not knowing the future does not live on after death.

In our ordinary lives, sometimes the movie ends in the middle, or we lose the book or the magazine, and we want to know how it turned out. We may carry a nagging frustration with us, perhaps for years. We may more generally wonder, "What's going to happen to everyone and everything after I die?" This is entirely appropriate, and we can in advance feel frustrated knowing we will not know how it turns out. But this frustration at not knowing is also extinguished at death. There is no entity left to wonder about any such thing.

3. Struggling against death may be all-consuming, but once death comes things are totally different.

Evolution has programmed us, in all ways and at all levels, to live as long as possible. Heights, snakes, and fearsome predators terrify us because they might kill us. Using our human cognitive skills we also put effort into planning months or years in advance so we have food and do not freeze to death or die of thirst. We devise defenses against others, whether animals or fellow humans, who would do us harm. Yet as our bodies actually do get to the point of giving out, our heart beats frantically fast in its last efforts if it can't do its job properly. We gasp desperately when we can't get enough air. In its last acts, the body is screaming that there is severe danger, something to be avoided in any way possible, and when it finally does stop working and die, its message is that we have met the ultimate failure.

You might think that we humans with our cognitive skills could arrange for suicide reliably, but a great many methods are highly uncertain, as the other layers of our biology call forth every trick they know to survive. We will vomit up poisons. When our air supply is cut off, we will by reflex thrash violently in an effort to breathe again, enough to thwart many suicide attempts by that means. You may bleed from a deep cut, but your body tends to limit the loss of blood enough to survive. The prospect of jumping from a high place or throwing yourself in front of a moving vehicle both awaken the deepest instincts of self-preservation. 

And while the body's deeply rooted, desperate attempts to stay alive tell us something horrible is at hand, we can use our human cognition to get past that. The dying is quite possibly painful and distressing, but we knew it was inevitable, and the passing of the pain and distress is equally inevitable. There is no longer anyone to be distressed. They do not go to some better (or worse) place, and they do not hang around as a ghost. They may appear in some form to the living, usually in the form of memories. Occasionally they appear as hallucinataions, but this is entirely a phenomenon of the mind of the living. The dead person is not there. There is no dead person. The comforting thought that the dead person has achieved eternal rest is equally wrong -- there is no vestige of a person who exists in time. Non-existence precludes any concept of "rest".

4. Coming at it from a different angle

Years ago a friend sent me a quote along the lines of, "How strange and unusual life is -- how totally unlike anything else!" What's humorous is that "conscious life" is in its own category, and there is nothing that could possibly be like life. When contemplating that, I feel no particular unease. But then I can consider one of the excluded states that is not like conscious life -- and that is death. I suppose if I had any intuitive sense of an afterlife, I might have questioned the original -- maybe an afterlife, where we are assumed to be conscious and aware of our continuity with a former living being, is sort of like life. But lacking any such intuitive sense, "death" as an excluded state can be contemplated peacefully.

5. Summary

Thinking of ourselves as having any location after death is unhelpful. One vital element to the non-existence of death is the absence of any form of duration or passage of time. A day after death, the non-existent dead "person" is exactly the same non-thing that it will be in a billion years. A non-thing without any trace of existence in time.

Our longing to know the future beyond our death dies with us.

The body's deep-rooted and desperate attempts to put off death as long as possible, and the pain and distress that often arises as parts of its final failure, is naturally something we fear and that is simply "bad". But the final state of non-existence, which we humans can grasp with our big brains, is totally different. It is not pain, failure, or decay. It is simply nonexistence.

Of course I'm not saying I've solved the problem. I suspect death will still feel just plain wrong to many or most of us, from the depths of our souls, and that most definitel includes me. But perhaps some of the dread can be set aside.

And my readers may well ask why I never grew up, or why I have regressed to consider big questions that have no good answers. Sorry. When I look inside, that's one of the things I see.



Thursday, May 11, 2023

Daughter Music: Two In a Garden

 

I was never the greatest dad, when my girls were young, in saying that everything they did was terrific just because I was their dad and they were my kids, independent of the actual merits. I wasn't terrible at it, but I wasn't great either. My mother felt feedback should be honest (so sometimes negative) from quite a young age, so I had to break with a family pattern to do it at all.


But now with Becky having passed age 34, such concerns are all gone. She and her friend Nicole self-produced an album in the fall of 2021 called 'Two In a Garden". At first I wasn't particularly taken with it, but at some point early this year I really got into it and now like it a lot. I asked for a description of the genre, and there was no simple, single label. I think it was roughly "a capella quirky folk-trad-song".


She said none of the songs are original compositions, but they did their own arranging and harmonizing. In earlier music experience, she had several sessions with Village Harmony, including trips to Georgia, Ukraine, and South Africa. In college she was a driving force behind making Chaverim into a group focused on international music (https://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/chaverim/). She has become an active presence today in the Sacred Harp community. Her day job now is as a writer/editor/manager for Devoted Health (https://www.devoted.com/).


This is Becky and Nicole's Bandcamp page: https://beckyandnicole.bandcamp.com/


I think Becky said you can listen to 3 or 4 tracks for free before they want you to pay. And if you did, these are my recommendations:


https://beckyandnicole.bandcamp.com/track/the-old-churchyard


https://beckyandnicole.bandcamp.com/track/witch-hazel


https://beckyandnicole.bandcamp.com/track/fields-of-wonder


https://beckyandnicole.bandcamp.com/track/give-me-wings-been-in-the-storm-i-will-meet-you-in-the-city