Author Archives: gaussling

About gaussling

Gaussling is a senior scientist in the chemical business. He occasionally breaks glassware, spreads confusion and has been known to generate new forms of hazardous waste. Gaussling also digs aerospace, geology, and community theatre.

The Chair

I was trapped in the chair. There was no polite escape. As I sat there staring at the floor and biting my tongue, my hair stylist went on an extended harangue about the abundance of lazy and unmotivated Millennials and Gen-Xers. Her words issued forth like a stream of shiny mercury, glistening from years of practice and heavy with resentment. I marveled at how so many words could come from so few breaths. Luckily, during this session I was spared the usual lecture on the horrors of COVID masks and vaccination.

She was a blond, attractive 70 year old standing about 5″6″ with bright, lime green glasses. She wore a dark green smock with the hair of many clients on it. As she rambled and snipped at my hair, I withdrew into memories of my childhood in the late 1960’s. Back then, Americans were in a lather from a social step-change that was happening. The continuing Viet Nam War had polarized Americans broadly between two camps- the younger and more liberal antiwar tribe and the large population of older America-love-it-or-leave-it fans of John Wayne.

Prominent among the antiwar group were the hippies. Broadcast news loved to televise rampaging hippies protesting and rioting against the establishment. It made for compelling television. They were often dressed in a provocative way that was unfamiliar to the older generation and, perhaps worst of all, the men had shockingly long hair. Older generations took it as a personal affront to their established social norms. Rightly or not, hippies were notorious for radical beliefs, rampant drug use and moral depravity. They became larger than life in the minds of the older generation.

As a skinny 10 year old growing up along the cornfields of Iowa, I was like a Hobbit isolated from the troubles of the day both in distance and time. Geographically, the nearest center of counter-culture trouble was hours away in Chicago. We were also lagging behind the times culturally. While Iowa may have had leading edge farm implements and thriving agribusiness, we were not at the leading edge of pop culture in the 1960’s. The Lutheran and Baptist adults in my family circle were firmly against the hippie movement and despised communism. Somehow hippies and communism were entangled in their minds. They were fearful of the Domino Theory and strangely quiet about the great loss of American lives in Viet Nam. They would seek reassurance by frequently asking what we kids thought of hippies. Of course, we parroted back that we didn’t like them or their drugs. Today I believe that the “hippie movement” in total was part of a needed and valuable change going into the future.

In my experience as a baby boomer, every generation looks at the younger generations with skepticism. Will they be ready to guide civilization when their turn to lead comes around? Do they have the moral certitude and the grit to do what is necessary? If the question really means, will they continue the older generation’s norms going forward, then I think the answer is no. But if they take the challenge to continue the advance of technology for the benefit of all, then they’ll probably do a good job. Sadly, my Boomer generation is leaving them a fine mess.

As I sat in the chair with all the snipping and the grey hair falling to the floor, I considered suggesting to the stylist that I know plenty of Millennials and Gen-Xers who are righteous and hard-working citizens who make contributions to society every day. My kid is one. I might have gently suggested that her beliefs were based on hazy exaggeration. But, what does arguing with a fool really get you even if you win? I just wasn’t in a crusading mood.

The Idiot and Poststructuralism

ANNOUNCEMENT

Colloquium at The Center for Contemporary Idiocy, Rand Paul Auditorium

Poltroon University, Guapo AZ

The Center for Contemporary Idiocy is pleased to announce a lecture and panel discussion on “The Demise of Roe v Wade: Will Anti-Abortion Single Issue Voters Continue to Vote Republican?”

The Idjota Award for Graduate Studies in Western Idiocracy will be given after the speaker.

Guest Speaker: Dr. Horst Statek van Klingenn, Distinguished Fellow, The Institute for Poststructuralism and Malign Idiocy, Pan Handle College, OK.

6:30 PM Refreshments

7:00 PM Speaker

8:06 PM Panel Discussion

Oh Marjorie, What Next?

Warning. If you don’t like liberal political content, then it’s probably best to move along.

Marjorie Taylor Greene was taken to task on her earlier statements suggesting that dark Jewish interests were involved in corruption at PG&E and certain California wildfires. In November 2018, she went on a Twitter diatribe about wildfires in California and how it appeared to some that “lasers or blue beams of light” caused the fires. Earlier in the tweet, Greene said that a PG&E board member was also vice chairman of Rothschilds, Inc., an international investment banking firm, and had provided funding to Gov. Jerry Brown. Brown, she claims, signed a bill that allowed PG&E to pass it’s costs from the fires along to the customers. She claims later that she didn’t know that using the word “Rothschilds” was an anti-semitic dog whistle. There may be elements of truth imbedded in her brain dump of words.

Then Greene strings the “analysis” along to PG&E’s connection to Solaren and space-based solar energy generators. She speculates that the orbital solar energy generator may have mistakenly beamed energy onto California and started the wildfires.

This is a good example of how conspiracy theories get started. There is some foundational truth in her words. PG&E had agreed to purchase energy from the startup Solaren as early as 2009. And Solaren did have technology for the beaming of RF energy from space. However, the story goes non-linear when anecdotal information arises claiming that “lasers or blue beams of light” are seen coinciding with forest fires where inference transmogrified into cause. Greene does not overtly state that energy from space in fact caused the fires. A knot of brain cells somewhere tells her to be careful with that. Greene only has to raise the question to imply it.

This is exactly what Fox News people like Carlson and Hannity do. They misdirect by claiming that they were “only asking the question.” In fact they are asking leading questions. A leading question is one that prompts a desired answer. It is a very effective tool in grooming anger, fear and suspicion in the population as well as bringing profitable ad revenue to Fox. For people who enjoy being lead into the dark side, saying that they are being bamboozled won’t matter. This dark art would not have been unknown to propagandists like Joseph Goebbels.

The question for the rest of us is this- How do we discourage unfounded conspiracy mania in political discourse? Continuous education? Loud denials with stamping of the feet? My feeling is that it only begins early with better secular K-12 education that sharpens analytical skills in young people. But that is the easy part. The harder part would be increasing economic opportunity for a middle class life and affordable housing. If life is a constant struggle to make ends meet, if you have little or no discretionary income, or if you have a go-nowhere job, then anger and despair with “the deep state” will be a constant companion and discolor your outlook. My guess is that most MAGA adults are refractory to persuasion and are likely to live out their lives with their misguided Trump fantasies.

Silent, democracy-minded people out there can help by speaking up and voting, to begin with. False and misleading assertions should not go unanswered. Advertisers who pay for the broadcasting of inciteful and malignant content should be shunned on the large scale. People like Australian Rupert Murdoch must be held accountable for the purposeful and profitable content that damages American culture. True damage to America does not require the breaking of laws. It only requires the loss of faith in democracy.

Ekaterina Schulmann

Below is a translation of a speech given by Russian political scientist and human rights activist Ekaterina Schulmann, cut and pasted in its entirety from an essay by Alexey Vlasenko who is the translator and a contributor to The Daily Kos. Schulmann has an interesting take on Putin’s motivation for the Ukraine invasion.

“Many people will ponder this question and come up with many different answers, all of which will seem logical.  Naturally, I have my own hypothesis, which I don’t claim is the one truth.  Nevertheless, since we are having such a remarkable discussion, I will share it.

He did this to halt time.  I’ll try to explain what this implies.

I think that these processes which we [political scientists] were observing, including the transformation of values, of worldviews, of public opinion [specifically in Russia], were real.  I do not think that we were all in thrall of illusions when we noted that violence in society is decreasing; that crime rates are falling; that new generations have a new value system; that video games actually reduce violence, rather than increase it; that, in general, the younger the social stratum, the more pronounced the decline in violent crime and in consumption of hard liquor; that imperial nostalgia is fading into the past.

Now, turn this picture around, and imagine yourself on the other side.  There you sit and watch as the sands of time slip through your fingers.  You will inevitably be succeeded by — let’s use his language — traitors.  Your children are traitors.  They do not share your view of life, they do not share your view of the world, they do not see that which you see with such clarity. You are the last defender of the fortress.  They will surrender it to the enemy, because they do not even consider him an enemy, and no matter how much you try to convince them, they still won’t consider.

A sizable, cultured and educated segment of the public sits around you at a safe distance, looks on and says:  “Go on, we’ll wait.  When you die, it will be our turn.  The sympathies of the future are on our side.  The youth idolizes us, not you.  But do go on, sit there for now, why not.  We will not storm the Kremlin, we only need to wait.”

A year passes, and another, then a third.  Everything continues in the same vein.  At the same time, your head is full of geopolitics, and the neighboring country is causing you unease.  It had somehow made progress, which is very disturbing.  And you realize that a little more, just a tiny bit longer, and that’s it, your historical time will end.  Your window will shut.  They will tell you: “Well, that’s enough, get down from there.  The next ones are coming.” And these next ones are unacceptable to you.  From your point of view, they are worse than useless, they will doom everything, they will ruin everything.

“He’ll smash to bits the sacred vessels, he’ll feed the dirt with royal oil, he’ll squander everything – and by what right?” [from The Covetous Knight, by Alexander Pushkin].  Read that again, and realize that this is not about money.  You will be seized with horror, at this hatred for one’s heirs, hatred for the living simply because they shall go on living.  “It’s time for me to rot, and you to blossom.”  A reasonable person can accept this, can caress a baby, understanding that “yes, I will turn to dust, but you will live on and prosper.”

But if you happen to be constituted a little bit differently, and you also happen to hold a great deal of power in your hands, then you can do this trick: onto the heads of all these future generations, you will overturn a heavy concrete slab, which will crush them forever, or least in any foreseeable perspective. That future that they wanted, they won’t get.  Instead, they will get the future your way, even after you are no longer among the living, because you will do such a thing, oh my…

You are inside, you understand?  Yes, inside this fortress that you’re guarding, you will figuratively detonate an atomic bomb.  True, there will be no life left in the fortress, but it will be radioactive and therefore unapproachable, and so it will forever remain “unconquered”, so to speak.

Not to speak of the specific culprit, with all due respect for him and his functions, but of a whole social and demographic stratum. Have you seen our average age figures?  But it’s not just age per se. It’s a certain social affiliation, a certain kind of experience, a certain world view that is formed by this experience.  Anyone who can’t accept the flow of time and come to terms with it, yet possesses power, could do this kind of thing.

This is my explanation.  It’s only a working hypothesis, but that’s how it is.  I do see confirmation from many sources, as well as in very public official pronouncements about how “we need to do this right now, tomorrow would be too late”, just another moment and everything will turn to irrevocable regret and musings of “we should have…”

This sentiment of “time flowing away” is something that I have been hearing for a long time, I think.  I speak about this whenever I discuss generational change.  The feeling that somehow history is not headed “in our direction”, this hatred and disgust for tomorrow, because “it is not what I need”, is clearly audible [in Putin’s speeches].  What was hard to grasp is that someone would go to such ends in an attempt to drown out these apparently unbearable feelings.

The trouble is, of course, that this terrible work of isolation is being done from both sides.  The wall is being built from both outside and inside.  We cannot blame the outside world for wanting to protect itself from, let’s say it out loud, an aggressive regime that is attacking and killing people.  Still, the labor of isolation is being worked by four hands.  It’s horrible.  [To repair the damage] will take a lot of work over a very long time.  Simply returning to a level that, until now, we took for granted, will require an unimaginable expenditure of effort and resources.  

It’s remarkable and tragic how humanity can squander its strength like this.”

Liberalism and its Discontents

An interesting review of a book titled Liberalism and its Discontents by political scientist Francis Fukuyama of Stanford University appeared in the internet magazine Quillette recently. The author of the review, Seamus Flaherty, is a writer and historian. The article struck me, as a moderate liberal, as a fair analysis of historical liberalism and where it might be going. I won’t rattle on about the article except to say that the final paragraph below sums up nicely some informed thoughts about liberalism. Flaherty writes-

“According to Fukuyama, the best we can hope for is a liberalism aware of its flaws, a liberalism that “prioritizes public-spiritedness, tolerance, open-mindedness, and active engagement in public affairs,” is unembarrassed by national identity and cultural tradition, seeks to devolve power to the lowest feasible levels of government, and accepts human limits and promotes the virtue of moderation. A liberalism, in short, which seeks to compensate for its own ineradicable shortcomings. In so saying, Fukuyama sounds a lot like a reticent Red Tory or Blue Labourite—a critic of liberalism who is not anti-liberal—an impression created throughout his new book. Now, that is “progress.” What Fukuyama succeeds in showing us is that liberalism need not be commensurate with the extremes of individualism or wokeism. His version of liberalism repudiates both.”

A final comment about vocabulary. In looking up an unfamiliar word found in the article, I encountered the words that describe my world view quite well. Meliorism: the idea that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one. Yeah, I like it.

Earth Day on the Pale Blue Dot

This Earth Day of April 22, 2022, is a good time to stop and reflect a moment on our home in the universe. We live on a gleaming blue and white wet rock hurtling around a yellow star in a cosmos so vast that it is well beyond our ability to comprehend. On February 14, 1990, a photo looking back at Earth was taken from a distance of 4 billion miles by the space probe Voyager 1 on its way out of the solar system. This photo features a tiny, pixel-sized, blue dot. Our lonely home world.

So far, this decade of the 2020’s has begun with global contagion and a growing standoff by nuclear powers over culture and real estate. Many are saying that the conflict will lead to famine in Africa and economic chaos elsewhere. How it unfolds is the question on everyone’s mind. If there was ever a time for us to take a pause to look at the big picture, that time is now. We could all use a bit of humility from time to time.

Someone once joked that the international unit of humility should be called the “Sagan.” Carl Sagan the astronomer was a gifted and popular spokesman for astronomy and space science in a time of great discovery and space exploration in the latter 1900’s. Carl Sagan the writer is said to have published more than 600 scientific papers and 20 books for lay audiences. What’s more, in addition to co-writing and narrating a popular TV series, he wrote a piece of science fiction, Contact, that was turned into a popular movie.

Sagan wrote the following-

“Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there–on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”

— Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994

Copyright © 1994 by Carl Sagan, Copyright © 2006 by Democritus Properties, LLC.

Putin Rattles the World with Upgraded ICBM

An article by Bloomberg and reposted by MSN reports the launch of Russia’s new Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in the northern Arkhangelsk Oblast. Putin is quoted in the Bloomberg piece as saying-

“this unique weapon will strengthen the military potential of our armed forces, will reliably guarantee Russia’s security against outside threats and force those, who in the heat of frenzied aggressive rhetoric try to threaten our country, to think again.”

Can we take it that the stated uniqueness of this weapon is related to it’s ability to evade whatever antiballistic missile capability the west may have? Or perhaps Sarmat may have greater range or more numerous and more accurate MIRVs? Whatever the case may be, Putin is ratcheting up the tension and uncertainty with regard to his dedication to the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), making us wonder about his unleashing a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

There has been much speculation on what could trigger Putin’s use of tactical nuclear weapons. Informed opinion can be found in The Congressional Research Office document, updated in March of 2022, titled “Russia’s Nuclear Weapons: Doctrine, Forces, and Modernization.”

This document states that in a 2018 speech to the Federal Assembly, Putin said-

“I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state. This all is very clear and specific. As such, I see it is my duty to announce the following. Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences. There should be no doubt about this whatsoever.”

“There is no provision for a preventive strike in our nuclear weapons doctrine. Our concept is based on a retaliatory reciprocal counter strike. This means that we are prepared and will use nuclear weapons only when we know for certain that some potential aggressor is attacking Russia, our territory [with nuclear weapons]…. Only when we know for certain—and this takes a few seconds to understand—that Russia is being attacked will we deliver a counterstrike…. Of course, this amounts to a global catastrophe, but I would like to repeat that we cannot be the initiators of such a catastrophe because we have no provision for a preventive strike.”

While Putin says that Russia cannot be the initiators of a catastrophe, which could be taken as a nuclear exchange, Russia does reserve the right to a nuclear response to the use of conventional weapons that threaten the existence of the state. This suggests that a first use of nuclear weapons is possible by Russia. So, what circumstance would Russia have to be presented with to view a threat as existential? The death of Putin or the collapse of his government? A NATO invasion rolling onto Russian soil? Moscow surrounded by NATO tanks? Or just a moment of panic by Putin? One thing seems certain- Putin will be the judge of what is existential.

Elsewhere in the report it is stated that “… several [US] analysts have argued that Russia has adopted an “escalate to de-escalate” nuclear doctrine. They contend that when faced with the likelihood of defeat in a military conflict with NATO, Russia might threaten to use nuclear weapons in an effort to coerce NATO members to withdraw from the battlefield.”

This escalate to de-escalate idea from 2018 looks familiar. Maybe this is what Putin is doing now.

A summary of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review: John R. Harvey, Franklin C. Miller, Keith B. Payne, and Bradley H. Roberts, “Continuity and Change U.S. Nuclear Policy,” RealClear Defense, February 7, 2018. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/02/07/continuity_and_change_in_us_nuclear_policy_113025.html

[‘

From PC to Woke-ness

Linked here is an earlier essay on the evolution of political correctness (PC) as I have witnessed it. Before the epithet of “woke-ness” came along there was PC. In the early 2000’s rancid and cynical criticism of PC was trotted out and displayed as some kind of analysis by ultraconservative broadcasters and Christian evangelicals. PC as an epithet was useful for casting fuzzy accusations and to infer a kind of pathetic naivety to the mindset of progressive people. The accusation was difficult to counter and it gained wide spread use.

To counter the accusation of PC as a negative, one had to convince the accuser that fair treatment for all was a good thing and that the use of racial and ethnic slurs was a bad thing, not an unconstitutional imposition on free speech or an implied slur on white people. Defending PC in practice meant holding the accuser’s attention long enough to step through the morals and logic of PC- a tough exercise in listening for some people. It is another example of how it is easier to destroy than to build.

Lavrov Speaks

According to an article published in Newsweek and reposted by MSN, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly said-

“”Our special military operation is meant to put an end to the unabashed expansion [of NATO] and the unabashed drive towards full domination by the U.S. and its Western subjects on the world stage,” Lavrov told Rossiya 24, according to a translation from Russian state-run media outlet RT.”

The purpose behind Putin’s “special military operation” seems to be shifting a bit. Originally it was meant perform the “denazification” of Ukraine. Now Lavrov is saying that the purpose is to stop domination of the US and NATO in the world. To its dismay, Russia has embarrassed itself by the poor performance of its military and its equipment so it is trying to distract observers from its bloody nose by posturing itself to be against a more global threat.

Putin is hypersensitive to sharing a border with a NATO country. As this is being written, there are reports of Russian military equipment moving towards the border with Finland. Earlier, the Kremlin sternly warned Sweden and Finland against joining NATO.

Outwardly, Putin acts like he thinks that NATO is an active threat to Russian territory. What he really thinks will probably never be known for sure, but he definitely seems to be afraid of the influence of western culture and openness on Russia. What many observers suggest is that Putin was horrified and deeply embarrassed by the collapse of the Soviet Union and he seeks to reclaim what he believes was its power and respect in the world.

A common theme in Russian media is that America is a failed empire and its global influence has gone too far for too long. They point to the cultural and political disorder in America and to instability in its governance. All the while, we keep shoveling coal into that fire. Russian media pays great attention to Fox News personalities like Tucker Carlson because of his sharp criticism of the actions of the US and NATO in the war in Ukraine. Now is the time for Carlson to stop aiding the other side with his fratricidal talk. Carlson’s handlers need to step up and do the right thing. Lachlan and Rupert Murdoch should be feeling some heat over this.

America is already in a very real war with both Russia and China over democracy vs autocracy. Both countries seek to knock America from its position of influence in the world. China is perhaps a bit more patient than Russia. The irony is that we may knock ourselves out of this position.

Zoning and Hard Times, Again

I’m recirculating a few posts from long ago because I think they raise interesting points. This link relates to a problem with local zoning ordinances. The issue came to me after a trip to Bangkok, Thailand, some years ago where I got hopelessly lost on foot. I hope that reposting certain essays isn’t too tedious to the gentle reader.