On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 4:52 PM CLAUDEWELL THOMAS <cysid32> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 11:50 AM Prof Claudewell Thomas <cysid32> wrote:
There were two incidents that occurred yesterday that recapitulated earlier events in a déjà Vu manner.The first was the firing of the Captain of one of our two nuclear powered aircraft carriers by the acting Secretary of the Navy for trying to raise the alarm following a steep rise of infected sailors aboard the USS Teddy Roosevelt.Captain Brett Crozier was removed from command and forced into retirement after sending his concerns along non rigorous pathways that were intercepted and leaked.This occurred after navy channels were non responsive.The Captain’s plea was basically that we are not at war and sailors need not die.This reminded me of a much smaller incident at now closed Johnson AFB in Irumgawa Japan where an Air Foce Major was court martialed for refusing to scramble his voodoo fighters as our DEW (early warning)line was being tested innumerable times by Vietnamese,Chinese or even Russian jets.The reason was that the runways were badly in need of repair and jets were crashing and burning.Bizarrely as base psychiatrist I was asked( commanded) to determine whether the act of disobedience was failure to fly or contravention of an order.The problem was that I only had a ‘secret’security clearance and the matter was Top Secret. The need was great so I got to inspect the pitted runways,saw wrecked aircraft,heard the enemy strategy of timing our scramble response,examined the Major and concluded that the runway should be repaired and the offence was not failure to fly.( instant dismissal sans remuneration) The major was not court martialed but mysteriously lost his command while the pitted runway was removed from use but never repaired and the DEW line challenging continued with response transferred to Tachikawa AFB or Yokota AFB I have only felt somewhat free quite recently to talk about this Top Secret event.This event is far more serious, sailors will die.And were there a responsible authority the usefulness of cramped,human manned,delivery vehicles( submarines,aircraft carriers,etc will have been changed forever by Covid-19.The age of the robot is even closer.
The second was the appearance of the imperial son in law Kushner with the declaration that Federal Emergency Resources were “ours” and not accessible by the states or by congress.It was a pronouncement on par with the back door channel suggestion to the Russians, and the solution of the middle east problem by changing the location of the embassy and approving seizure of the Golan Heights with a hill to be named for his father in law.The meaning of ” ours “is the Trump family and it appears that ventilators,masks and disaster supplies are being and have been sold to highest bidders inside and outside of the U S A.with the money going to the Trumps.Emolument clause of the constitution where are you? Maybe the question can’t be asked without the consent of AG Bill Barr.
I am sending this to the Octogenarian blog as well so that readers of both blogs can give different interpretations ,if they have them ,of what I’ve seen and heard.U.S. coronavirus cases approaching 1/2 million,Deaths over 1000 ?Fauci security augmented.
Sent from my iPad
The Octogenarians 
daedal2207: “There are rules of logic that require context ( broad is best) for interpretation of statements and behavior.Dictators and cult leaders (and followers) are notorious for single incident interpretation and spurious analogy presentation.”
Wise words reflecting the scientific empirical record of history. Blind denial is cult-like behavior. However, not all political conservatives are members of a destructive cult. What is a destructive cult? https://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/cults
For thoughtful readers of this blog, below is an article from conservative thinker David Frum. (About the man, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum)
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/americans-are-paying-the-price-for-trumps-failures/609532/
“ ‘i don’t take responsibility at all,’ said President Donald Trump in the Rose Garden on March 13. Those words will probably end up as the epitaph of his presidency, the single sentence that sums it all up.”
Thoughtful, not pompous, reading.
For insights, David Frum is worth reading. He has vast experiences, both thinking about and operating within the world of politics. But there is no scarcity of experienced and brilliant thinkers who advocate opposing methods, as well as conflicting goals. My approach is less moralistic than that of Frum (and many others). For me it is what most likely works to better the human future, rather than, who or what is morally good or superior. This requires me to keep my arguments first of all rooted in fundamental philosophic principles as to what is the most probable truth of things, and then, from that base trying to logically examine what actions will most likely work to most efficiently and safely advance us toward worthy goals. As regards social structure and politics, I figure that the best goal to pursue is that of least human suffering, which includes maximizing the habitats needed for human success. SB apparently thinks this approach is smug and maybe pompous. It is true that I am very secure in the philosophic principles and care little about what others FEEL about my methods which are reliant on the laws of physics, facts and logic (but not who or what is evil or good). But I do care a lot about how others may THOUGHTFULLY provide empirical and logical evidence that allows me to correct possible misconceptions and thus become more accurate in my judgments.
It is interestingly fun and fascinating to see so many brilliant minds at ease labeling Donald Trump as an evil, incompetent, destroyer of humanity’s future when there is (particularly in the last three years) so much MEASURABLE AND LOGICAL EVIDENCE that should lead objective minds to accept the opposite as a more likely truth. What is likely such a widespread and major derangement is a wondrous thing to behold and leads to a great many intriguing questions speculating as to what it means to be human.
For insights, David Frum is worth reading. He has vast experiences, both thinking about and operating within the world of politics. But there is no scarcity of experienced and brilliant thinkers who advocate opposing methods, as well as conflicting goals. My approach is less moralistic than that of Frum (and many others). For me it is what most likely works to better the human future, rather than, who or what is morally good or superior. This requires me to keep my arguments first of all rooted in fundamental philosophic principles as to what is the most probable truth of things, and then, from that base trying to logically examine what actions will most likely work to most efficiently and safely advance us toward worthy goals. As regards social structure and politics, I figure that the best goal to pursue is that of least human suffering, which includes maximizing the habitats needed for human success. SB apparently thinks this approach is smug and maybe pompous. It is true that I am very secure in the philosophic principles and care little about what others FEEL about my methods which are reliant on the laws of physics, facts and logic (but not who or what is evil or good). But I do care a lot about how others may THOUGHTFULLY provide empirical and logical evidence that allows me to correct possible misconceptions and thus become more accurate in my judgments.
It is interestingly fun and fascinating to see so many brilliant minds at ease labeling Donald Trump as an evil, incompetent, destroyer of humanity’s future when there is (particularly in the last three years) so much MEASURABLE AND LOGICAL EVIDENCE that should lead objective minds to accept the opposite as a more likely truth. What is apparently a widespread and major derangement is a wondrous thing to behold and leads to a great many intriguing questions speculating as to what it means to be human.
O mi God….
“measurable”,”indisputable”,”irrefutable” thuggery and motivated manipulations.Some indeed,are receiving messages from a distant planet
O mi God… Daedal2207 illustrates exactly the point I was making in my statement on 10 April. That is, we see the absence of measurable and logical evidence that would support his moralistic,(I argue excess certitude) judgments about President Trump. Here, Trump is accused of “thuggery and motivated manipulations”. But we do not see any examples. Apparently Daedal2207 is assuming that we all listen and agree only with his favored sources for information plus what they exude in the way of “proper” attitudes and sentiments. Thus, he does not have to explain himself. If he would start to provide the objective justifications for his opinions, we would have some measurable data to examine. Without that data, we have only questionable sentiments and wishful beliefs.
Daedal2207 writes: “There are rules of logic that require context ( broad is best) for interpretation of statements and behavior.Dictators and cult leaders (and followers) are notorious for single incident interpretation and spurious analogy presentation.”
I agree with this statement. Now, will Daedal2207 provide for us the empirical and logical evidence that allows us to see more clearly whose ideas are most representative of being “dictators and cult leaders (and followers) who are notorious for single incident interpretation and spurious analogy presentation”.
daedal2207: “Emolument clause of the constitution where are you? Maybe the question can’t be asked without consent of AG Bill Barr.”
We are in “The Wizard of Oz” tornado … The Twilight Zone … an alternate world, with topsy-turvy definition. Lies are truths, courage is betrayal, science is myth, incompetence is genius, chaos is order. These opposites could go on and on. The price for this roller coaster has been the total collapse of trust. It’s been an orgy where the guiding compass has been cast side for the sheer pleasure of narcissistic and greedy power. Allegorical references come to mind: the worshipping of the golden calf (Deuteronomy 9:15 thru 9:18) and wandering in the wilderness (Numbers 32:13) as the cleansing/restructuring of a society/world order.
DS: “ If I insult ideas that you hold, I am not insulting you when I insult the idea. ”
What does that mean? If you punch my face … an integral part of my body … you’re not punching me … just my face? How very pedantic. Sir, you do not insult. Your thoughts merely reflect who you are: an orator who loves the sound of his own words in the world stage. Case in point:
DS: “This identification with ideas is in conflict with the objectivity of the scientific method. … The idea of Science focuses on skepticism. Beliefs are to remain “out there” so that they can be analyzed, tested and corrected.”
You’re free to preach, but not practice what you preach? As in Meredith Wilson’s “The Music Man,” you state your opinions using the “Think System” without any of your empirical or scientific protocol. Fine … that’s who you are. To quote you further:
DS: “If you become so emotionally dependent on one belief/idea such that any criticism of it is felt to be an insult, you have shunted yourself away from the discovery and growth benefits of science.”
Practice what you preach, sir. But, your choice is to be in your comfort zone and choose to remain there. BTW, nowadays it’s called … bubble.
DS: “… it is thrust at the Trump administration every day all day by media so filled with hatred for this man – and hatred for the ideas of the original America that Trump is so successfully advancing.” And, “ So, which is it, or is it all of these statements of mine that Daedal2207 believes to be foolish? And, let’s see from him some deep and clear reasoning, reasoning that would allow every mind reading this blog to finally possess the empirical and logical evidence required for supporting whatever he presumes to be a wiser view.”
Here we go again with the “empirical and logical” measuring sticks. “Foolish”? Nah. Pompous? Oh, yeah. While yours are broad comments (which you attribute to others — I thought daedal2207’s response was rather spot on!), please support your statements, sir. Define “original America” and “successfully advancing.”
DS: “A more probable understanding of this comment by Kushner would see the word ‘our’ as referring to all these United States.“
Really? And the United States is composed of … 50 states. Right?
(”The federal government of the United States (U.S. federal government)[a] is the national government of the United States, a federal republic in North America, composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories and several island possessions.”)
So, when states, led by their duly elected governors, turn to the federal government for assistance in dealing with a life-altering (DS, do you object to that description?) pandemic, how does Jared Kushner respond: ” it’s supposed to be our stockpile. It’s not supposed to be state stockpiles that they then use.”
Meaning? In the meantime, the rest of the world is dealing with the facts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/navarro-warning-trump-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
“ A top White House adviser starkly warned Trump administration officials in late January that the coronavirus crisis could cost the United States trillions of dollars and put millions of Americans at risk of illness or death. … Dated Jan. 29, it came during a period when Mr. Trump was playing down the risks to the United States, and he would later go on to say that no one could have predicted such a devastating outcome.“
Suggested reading:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200325-covid-19-the-history-of-pandemics
Forty years of wandering. Did it star in November 2016? You and I will be gone, DS. But, our children … and grandchildren! Enough. Still boring.
Much more than well said!!
Why these ideas are not understood is fascinating, but if we are to communicate anything of real value some things have to be realized. Start with: Words have meaning. “Measurable” and “empirical” have meaning, (They tell us that others can also get the same measurements; thus, the personal, wishful, subjective element is excluded, and the objective clarified).
I wrote the following: “If I insult ideas that you hold, I am not insulting you when I insult the idea.”
SB asks: What does that mean? If you punch my face … an integral part of my body … you’re not punching me … just my face? How very pedantic. Sir, you do not insult. Your thoughts merely reflect who you are: an orator who loves the sound of his own words in the world stage.
I clearly referred to ”ideas” being insulted, and there was no reference to something very different, physical attack. Why did SB choose to associate my statement with something that it was not? And then, springing from this invented issue, she tries her hardest to use it to demean me, while completely avoiding a reasoned challenge to the ideas I have put “out there” to be examined (and corrected if better evidence is provided). The fact that I am quite desirous of holding the most probably true of ideas means that I have no anxiety whatsoever about discovering better ideas and discarding those that are false. In fact, that is called growth, that is what I mean when I write about the scientific method. In fact, that is exactly why the scientific method exists.
SB clearly does not like many of the ideas I am presenting (hoping for reasoned analysis) and demeaning the character of the messenger is her plan A for avoiding having to face their rational consequences. This is a perfect illustration of how a person can identify so deeply with some ideas that even rational challenges to them are felt to be a threat to her core being.
Hunger Games?
Thanks
It certainly seems to fit!!!
Excellent! It only took 12 years for the dystopian model to become current and relevant. Back then, it was an unbearable read.
Our eternal problem is that, except for areas of thought involving self-defined premises (rules of the game), decisions must be made with incomplete knowledge. “Chains of command”, as a general rule, are designed to maximize efficiencies. To eliminate all problems would be impossible. So, it may be true that an officer was justifiably relieved from duty because he deviated from the rules of command, and the same officer was for many moral or practical contextual reasons justified for deviating from command policy. Weighing the relative merit of each is not a perfect science and is subject to many variables. That describes too our judgement about the judgments of others.
This understanding about unknowns should also apply to judgments about Kushner’s use of “our” when referring to medical resources. No matter all the other legitimate possibilities for the use of that pronoun, Daedal2207’s mindset (along with many MSNBC, and CNN talking heads) apparently allows him to see only an interpretation that supports a purely selfish intent. This deep-seated need to believe ill of Trump and Republicans tells him that Kushner is revealing that those resources belong to the Trump family and, at the expense of the health of our country, this family is profiting monetarily by Trump’s allowing ANY medical resources to be sold to the highest bidder anywhere in the world.
A more probable understanding of this comment by Kushner would see the word “our” as referring to all these United States. The Federal role sometimes requires different policy decisions than some state governors desire. Allocations of needed resources that belong to all the states to some of the states is a job sometimes involving triage. That means having to make decisions about who will receive and who will not. Imagine the angst that this can create. I guess we do not have to imagine it. It is here in Daedal2207’s statement and it is thrust at the Trump administration every day all day by media so filled with hatred for this man – and hatred for the ideas of the original America that Trump is so successfully advancing.
And if you believe that,I have a bridge that you can buy for a pittance.
It would serve all of us if Daedal2207 would be more specific as to what I have presented that is so absurd that it can be equated with my buying the bridge (that possibly he is trying to sell to all of us).
Assuming it has to do with the Jared Kushner paragraph, I have presented the idea that when Jared used the criticized word “ours” it referred to “the U.S.”. I then gave some reasons to support this possibility. I also remarked on the reaction many would likely take should they find themselves on the short end of a government-directed triage distribution. A third point had to do with a general hatred directed at Trump the individual and at his support for our original concept of America, a concept that does not require the selection of Supreme Court Justices to hinge on the their believing in a “living Constitution.
So, which is it, or is it all of these statements of mine that Daedal2207 believes to be foolish? And, let’s see from him some deep and clear reasoning, reasoning that would allow every mind reading this blog to finally possess the empirical and logical evidence required for supporting whatever he presumes to be a wiser view.
There are rules of logic that require context ( broad is best) for interpretation of statements and behavior.Dictators and cult leaders (and followers) are notorious for single incident interpretation and spurious analogy presentation.
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog.