Thanks Carolyn, your 2016 work was Chillingly prophetic both then and now. 2000 years ago, an ignorant, frenzied mob sacked and burnt our finest repository of knowledge and wisdom. Fast forward and the same nearly happened for one of the great bastions of institutional democracy. Thanks for keeping our eyes and minds open.
Your epistle of 2016 is a great read and chillingly prophetic both then and now. I get a sense of the decline of the great democracies into division and authoritarianism,just as you and others predicted, and I worry for the future of good science.After all, just like the storming of Capitol Hill after the 2020 US election,, a whipped up, ignorant and frenzied mob sacked, looted and torched the finest library on Earth, tore it's last magnificent librarian to pieces and ushered in a dark age that set humanity back a thousand years. All depressingly familiar.
Oh, I bet you do know Greene!--Graham Greene, Murder on the Orient Express, The Quiet American, many many others, over a 50- or 60-year literary career....very much out of the picture and out of mind these days and long gone from our world....The Hazzard book is exemplary in my Watson project because it takes a man who was notoriously difficult, unpleasant, and very famous.....and shows him in a very human way, plusses and minuses, in his late and most-crusty and arguably unappealing years. The argument against writing about such people is that so much ink has already been spilled on them, their character, their flaws, their "greatness," etc. Perhaps the world has had enough? The book, if I do have the strength to do it, will be a very personal non-fiction view of this figure whose fall from the loftiest heights I witnessed day by day over a period of years. Lion in Winter is perhaps too gentle. Lear-ish might be more apt. It is, in the sense of the fall, an epic story...of a loss of not only status, but very nearly personhood as well. The absolute requirement would be that I limit what I say to perhaps 100-125 pages--as Hazzard did when she wrote about Greene. Re. teaching--Univ. of Pennsylvania. These days, science writing, although my courses there, regardless of ostensible subject matter (currently: climate and environment) have always really been about establishing facts and mobilizing them to write in the non-fiction mode AND (separately) in the subjective or "opinion" mode. The increasing difficulty is that undergraduates are almost completely disconnected with the printed word these days. So my utility in their lives may be diminishing at this point--very sad to say.
Well, I'm not very well read; that's actually an understatement. I can't remember the last time I read fiction and I've never read Greene. About the printed word, I find the same is true in the practice of science. Very few people actually read scientific papers these days. They will go to conferences and hear very brief talks on a subject, or they learn the findings from headlines and news briefs. It's been this way for a long time. I think it's because there is so much scientific output these days that it's not possible to keep up with everything that might be relevant to your own work. And, as you suggest, young people get everything from online scrolling. Getting back to the topic of my post, which started the comments (now up to 80) going, it may be that after November, none of this is going to matter. Anyway, let's hope for the best, good luck with your book, and thanks for this exchange.
My view is this is another moment when those who have been maltreated by a society will chose to follow a savior rather than take responsibility for improving their own lot.
The only choice those who have been maltreated have is to vote. That's what voting is all about. But the wealthy and powerful have distorted the process. I don't really blame those people who have felt neglected and forgotten. They have reason to feel angry. We need to fix America, bring back jobs for those people -- Biden is doing that -- and make them feel part of the process again.
Reading your essay on 7/04/2024, after a week in which SCOTUS essntially lets DJT out of jail free, it seems insufficiently apocalyptic. But is not fair to criticize because on 11/08/2016 we were in a state
of shock and could not imagine all that DJT would do in his presidency and esp afterwards to the present.
But for those of us who believe that a) Biden should not be running for president and b) that if he does, he willl lose disastrously, WTF do we do now? I think there are 2 things we should starting doing now.
1: Select a candidate who has the potential to defeat DJT. As just a retired astronomer my only avenue for that is through my local elected politicians.
2: Go easy on criticism of Biden. Criticism makes it easier for the opposition.
Finally we must not think that the big problem in US is limited to the MAGA crowd. The Federal Judiciary is peppered with appointees who have been approved by the Heritage Foundation. John Stephens is a perfect example. Their agenda is very pro-business and in favor of a unitary presidency.
To me, if we're going to replace Biden, it needs to be Kamala Harris. She is known, so we're not pulling someone out of thin air that the majority of voters have no clue about. And, she is tough, knowledgeable, and would do a fabulous job, and I'm sure would confer with Biden often. But others have pointed out: the Democratic Convention in 1968, with a similar situation -- they didn't have a definite candidate selected before the Convention -- was chaotic and did not go well.
Just listen to Donald Trump. Just read his transcripts. One doesn’t need to hear or read the news about Trump—just read his own words. The man is out of his mind and certainly not presidential material.
Such a funny story--and it has a definite ring of truth! Yes, Jim is unpleasant to nearly everyone. I spent a half hour with him today, and it continues to be surpassingly sad, the whole saga. Re Milch--ALSO very funny! I know him slightly through the writing program at Penn, where he came as a visiting instructor for a brief span. He's arguably a brilliant screen writer, but I can't recall anyone ever saying he was....pleasant or nice! Another very difficult and flawed man. BTW, the model for the book I will one day write about Jim is _Greene on Capri_, by the marvelous (late) British novelist Shirley Hazzard. She got to know Greene in his final years as they both vacationed on Capri. A portrait of the Lion in Winter. She is so fine a writer that one can only view her brief and incisive portrait of Greene as aspirational.
Amazing that you know both of the antagonists in my story!! Here's another segment of it.
After the panel discussion was over, you can imagine that the attendees in the audience -- who I thought were all Hollywood folks -- were milling around each of us, wanting to ask us questions. I had a few around me. And I was absolutely horrified ... make that HORRIFIED ... that one of them was a reporter from the New York Times. Holy @#$%! I didn't know there were reporters in the audience. I pleaded with the guy to *not* quote me saying 'asshole'. 'Please, PLEASE, don't quote me saying that word. It will be the end of me'. And he said, 'Don't worry. We're not even allowed to print that word." Ha! Today, I pride myself that I let loose with a word that failed their 'all the news that's fit to print' criterion. On the other items, I'm afraid to say I know neither Green nor Hazzard. Are you going to write a novel or a biography? And what university are you at?
This is the issue has been weighing on my mind too. Thank-you for sharing your thoughts on what seems to be the frightening conundrum of what do choose when there are no preferred options on the table.
I should add ... meeting Watson was very unpleasant. I introduced myself and held out my hand for a polite handshake. He extending his but it was like a wet-noodle. I think he thought he was belittling himself to shake my hand.
Ah yes! Not only do I know who he is but I've met him! Twenty-six years ago, we were part of a panel discussion, hosted by the Sloan Foundation at Warner Bros Studios, about the way scientists were traditionally depicted in Hollywood films. It was a very eventful discussion. First, it was where I first met Richard Dawkins and, because we were on the same side of the argument (which became somewhat intense), we bonded and became friends. Second, I ended up calling one of the guys from Hollywood an 'asshole'. It was the NY city street kid coming out in me!
I understand your apprehensions about the presidential election. I understand a lot of people have fears and apprehensions about it.
However, I'd like to point out something:
The same people who've been talking about Mr. Trump for the last several years, and telling frightening stories about him, are exactly the same people who've been saying that Mr. Biden is "Sharp as a Tack" for the last several years and anyone who questions this is a liar, who's watching "Deep Fakes" and "Cheap Fakes."
These sources have Proven to be deceiving the public about Mr. Biden's deteriorated condtion.
The extent to which we've been deceived on many other things is not known.
What we do know is that they've been deceiving us.
And the question is, just how much of the stories of Mr. Trump have been exaggerations
or pure fabrications?
I would suggest, though, that if the news sources you trust have you in a state of fear
I honestly suggest that you look into other sources of news that haven't been proven to be
Scott ... I am *certain* that what is being said about Trump is not an exaggeration. I am from NYC. New Yorkers were well aware of Trump and his failed businesses and blustery ego-maniacal lying behavior. Even among Republicans, Trump got only something like 18% of the vote in the 2016 Election in NYCity. Moreover, he was President for one term and did a stupendous amount of damage across the board in 4 years ... from over a million dead Americans to backing out of international agreements. Read this from Reuters (a news organization) about what happened after Trump pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explainer-how-close-is-iran-having-nuclear-weapons-2024-04-18/ We've all known that Biden was getting old and less sharp. The first 10 mins of the debate were terrible. But he came back after that and was ok. He has a fantastic track record for bringing us back from the mess created by Trump and for putting into place legislation and programs to help ordinary Americans. The economy is doing well, jobs have increased tremendously since he's been in office, he got us out of the pandemic etc. I could go on.
Please remember, in this case you have no direct knowledge of the man except what appears in the media. In this case your 'measuring instrument' has been shown to be out of calibration.
They're been proven to be Lying about Biden.
They've been lying about Trump for years.
Do you truly believe "The economy is doing well?"
I honestly think you should open yourself up to some new newsmedia.
(PS. The original 2015 Iran Nuclear deal was to give Iran nuclear weapons in 10 years.
I incidentally don't pay much attention to 'the media' for the very reason that most of it is owned by corporations and they want Trump in. So they are very pro-Trump.
Carolyn, I parroted some of the same fears you mentioned in your article. I cried it from the rooftop before the election - danger, danger! But… we have long allowed the interests of the very few, rich and powerful people to pilfer the coffers of the middle class. Wages have been stagnant for decades, and inflation has not, with corporate interests realizing an almost 500% gain and, when balanced against inflation, nearly nothing for anyone else. Trump's claim on his financial disclosure that he paid $750 in federal taxes his last year in the White House confirmed what I already knew- Congress has sold the nation to the highest bidder. With Citizens United, SCOTUS codified the theft in law, much like they have opened the door for a dictator with their current immunity stunt. All of this happened because people sat out the 2016 election and handed the reigns of the country over to a narcissistic rapist. I can understand the dissolution. The public is becoming depoliticized, seeing no reason to vote. America’s epitaph will read, “ Died of greed and apathy”
Carolyn, first, thank you for again taking the time to respond. I intentionally withheld this final reply for this morning because I wanted to have some time to remind myself about the breadth of subject matter that Carl Sagan wrote about. I regularly still teach two of Carl's essays: One called "Chauvinism," the other, and my all-time favorite, "Is There Intelligent Life on Earth?" Both are brilliant examples of making profound points by adopting a novel perspective. The one expands our perspective by asking us to consider that there might be forms of life that are not carbon-based. The other conducts the thought experiment: what would an alien craft with the capabilities of a Voyager or a Galileo, sent whizzing by Earth, be likely to tell its senders about the nature of life on our planet? Both are science-based pieces, but they make marvelous, penetrating points about _us_ that can easily be described as having a "politics." Thinking of those, I wanted to say: aren't the most effective political commentaries by scientists those that are grounded in science and reflections on the scientific method as a means of discovering truth? But then I went to the bookcase and pulled out _Billions and Billions_, the last collection of Carl's essays. And there....we find essays on, among many things, besides the climate problem (which were the ones I remembered), essays on....abortion....when life begins....on war-making...on societal morality, writ large. These may have immense credibility because we already know the author and respect his brilliance; but his ability to publish essays like that are also partly a function of his fame. The same words submitted by an unknown author might not have drawn the interest of Random House. Who knows? My point is that Carl ranged far and wide in his subject matter. And so what this exercise showed me was that it was in fact inappropriate of me to suggest, implicitly, in my original comment, that you stick to science and stay clear of politics. It is just not possible for me to support that view, on reflection. Apologies, therefore--and to those on the thread who have been detained by my many words. This has however helped me think through this issue of what great scientists write about (I am dealing with it in my planned short book about the "great man of science" I mentioned a few messages ago). Now very briefly, to return to the question you ask: re. "human nature," the seeming propensity of very free societies to reach a point of disintegration....This is an intriguing and it seems to me unanswerable question. The historian I was trained to be wants to say that the author of the essay on Plato took a rather extreme shortcut by moving from The Republic to the "fading authority of elites" as a general or universal phenomenon where freedom reigns. I want to say that the devil will always be in the details--and in any case there are not that many historical examples of this. Still: that author says that "when elites are despised and full license is established to do 'whatever one wants,' you arrive at what might be called late-stage democracy. There is no kowtowing to authority here, let alone to political experience or expertise." We nod in recognition of the problem. The popular expression of disbelief and even contempt for elites, and for _expertise_, which is so bedrock to the MAGA phenomenon, is also a problem in establishing truths that can be commonly ascribed to (because of the procedures of verification--one of the great contributions of scientific thinking to civilization!) Our society seems cast adrift....but drifting in such a way as to render it exquisitely vulnerable to those with authoritarian designs. I am absolutely laid low by this phenomenon--as are so many of us who have devoted their careers to seeking and establishing and acting on "that which is true." You suggest that knowing this weakness in open and free societies, we may be able to improve the situation. I would not claim to know where it would be wise to take the first step, but I am definitely interested to know what you and your readers may think about this. I am all ears.
Peter ... Thank you very much for this. I can tell you are a scientist at heart. And I'm so glad that you agree now about Sagan. Carl took his training in critical thinking, sashayed into a number of 'societal' issues and gave his shot at a rational, fact-based evaluation and, where he saw one, a solution. That is what I most admired about him. He was cross-disciplinary and fearless. He got himself arrested at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site near Las Vegas in 1987 to demonstrate against nuclear proliferation. To me, that's what scientists -- at least those who are gifted in encapsulating difficult ideas in understandable language for the masses -- should be doing: illustrating what application of reason and rational thinking to a big thorny problem can do in solving, first step of which is establish guidelines for thought and next, butt heads with the authorities if you must. On a different subject ... are you going to tell us who this 'great man of science' was/is?
Thank you so much Carolyn. That story about Carl is a great one! I shall see the "great man of science" in about 2 or 3 hours, at a 4th of July gathering. We all sort of cringe in expectation. My clues are that 1) he is a Nobel laureate; 2) apart from Dr. Shockley, he is probably the modern scientist whose reputation has descended the most from its pinnacle; 3) like Andrew Sullivan, the elitist author of the Plato essay, he is unabashedly still an adherent of the argument in the egregious book _The Bell Curve_ by Charles Murray and Prof. Hernstein. 4) He is _very_ old. In the eternal words of my ancestors: oy! I imagine you will figure out the identity of this fallen figure. My relationship with him over nearly 20 years is very complicated and has supplied innumerable occasions for reflections on personal and professional morality (among other topics!)
One last comment from me on this post ... Today is a general election in the UK in which the conservative Tories, who have been in power for the past 14 years, are expected to be swept out of office and replaced with the Labor Party. The Tories have been deeply unpopular and so the election is expected to be a landslide. Should be interesting to watch.
Practically speaking, what can I do? What effect can I possibly have on such a large scale? What is worst for me is the sense of powerlessness I feel here. I've been saying for years that we are modeling the decline of an empire and that living during that sort of time scares me, in the sense that we are leaving this mess for the next generations to mop up, and we are not equipping them properly to handle this. Our education system has been undermined by the Republicans, and the erosion continues, and seems to be accelerating. Witness the legislation to mandate old testament crap in the classroom. On a lighter note, I can't wait to see how the new law will be "handled " in various higher education settings in Louisiana ;)
Thanks Carolyn, your 2016 work was Chillingly prophetic both then and now. 2000 years ago, an ignorant, frenzied mob sacked and burnt our finest repository of knowledge and wisdom. Fast forward and the same nearly happened for one of the great bastions of institutional democracy. Thanks for keeping our eyes and minds open.
Your epistle of 2016 is a great read and chillingly prophetic both then and now. I get a sense of the decline of the great democracies into division and authoritarianism,just as you and others predicted, and I worry for the future of good science.After all, just like the storming of Capitol Hill after the 2020 US election,, a whipped up, ignorant and frenzied mob sacked, looted and torched the finest library on Earth, tore it's last magnificent librarian to pieces and ushered in a dark age that set humanity back a thousand years. All depressingly familiar.
Thanks for remarks. I hadn't thought of the sacking of the library at Alexandria. Very appropriate.
Hey Carolyn, thanks for your work on behalf of all humankind. You help open our eyes.
Thank you, Andy. You just made my day!
Stay tuned. There will be more.
Oh, I bet you do know Greene!--Graham Greene, Murder on the Orient Express, The Quiet American, many many others, over a 50- or 60-year literary career....very much out of the picture and out of mind these days and long gone from our world....The Hazzard book is exemplary in my Watson project because it takes a man who was notoriously difficult, unpleasant, and very famous.....and shows him in a very human way, plusses and minuses, in his late and most-crusty and arguably unappealing years. The argument against writing about such people is that so much ink has already been spilled on them, their character, their flaws, their "greatness," etc. Perhaps the world has had enough? The book, if I do have the strength to do it, will be a very personal non-fiction view of this figure whose fall from the loftiest heights I witnessed day by day over a period of years. Lion in Winter is perhaps too gentle. Lear-ish might be more apt. It is, in the sense of the fall, an epic story...of a loss of not only status, but very nearly personhood as well. The absolute requirement would be that I limit what I say to perhaps 100-125 pages--as Hazzard did when she wrote about Greene. Re. teaching--Univ. of Pennsylvania. These days, science writing, although my courses there, regardless of ostensible subject matter (currently: climate and environment) have always really been about establishing facts and mobilizing them to write in the non-fiction mode AND (separately) in the subjective or "opinion" mode. The increasing difficulty is that undergraduates are almost completely disconnected with the printed word these days. So my utility in their lives may be diminishing at this point--very sad to say.
Well, I'm not very well read; that's actually an understatement. I can't remember the last time I read fiction and I've never read Greene. About the printed word, I find the same is true in the practice of science. Very few people actually read scientific papers these days. They will go to conferences and hear very brief talks on a subject, or they learn the findings from headlines and news briefs. It's been this way for a long time. I think it's because there is so much scientific output these days that it's not possible to keep up with everything that might be relevant to your own work. And, as you suggest, young people get everything from online scrolling. Getting back to the topic of my post, which started the comments (now up to 80) going, it may be that after November, none of this is going to matter. Anyway, let's hope for the best, good luck with your book, and thanks for this exchange.
I agree with all you said. I’m pointing out that they are choosing to follow (and believe) rather than think for themselves (as scientists)
My view is this is another moment when those who have been maltreated by a society will chose to follow a savior rather than take responsibility for improving their own lot.
The only choice those who have been maltreated have is to vote. That's what voting is all about. But the wealthy and powerful have distorted the process. I don't really blame those people who have felt neglected and forgotten. They have reason to feel angry. We need to fix America, bring back jobs for those people -- Biden is doing that -- and make them feel part of the process again.
Reading your essay on 7/04/2024, after a week in which SCOTUS essntially lets DJT out of jail free, it seems insufficiently apocalyptic. But is not fair to criticize because on 11/08/2016 we were in a state
of shock and could not imagine all that DJT would do in his presidency and esp afterwards to the present.
But for those of us who believe that a) Biden should not be running for president and b) that if he does, he willl lose disastrously, WTF do we do now? I think there are 2 things we should starting doing now.
1: Select a candidate who has the potential to defeat DJT. As just a retired astronomer my only avenue for that is through my local elected politicians.
2: Go easy on criticism of Biden. Criticism makes it easier for the opposition.
Finally we must not think that the big problem in US is limited to the MAGA crowd. The Federal Judiciary is peppered with appointees who have been approved by the Heritage Foundation. John Stephens is a perfect example. Their agenda is very pro-business and in favor of a unitary presidency.
Oh, and yes, there are other forces besides the MAGA folks. Very powerful forces that have been stealthily active for decades.
To me, if we're going to replace Biden, it needs to be Kamala Harris. She is known, so we're not pulling someone out of thin air that the majority of voters have no clue about. And, she is tough, knowledgeable, and would do a fabulous job, and I'm sure would confer with Biden often. But others have pointed out: the Democratic Convention in 1968, with a similar situation -- they didn't have a definite candidate selected before the Convention -- was chaotic and did not go well.
Just listen to Donald Trump. Just read his transcripts. One doesn’t need to hear or read the news about Trump—just read his own words. The man is out of his mind and certainly not presidential material.
You might want to turn this comment into a reply for Kellogg (who commented on this post). I think he needs to hear it.
Such a funny story--and it has a definite ring of truth! Yes, Jim is unpleasant to nearly everyone. I spent a half hour with him today, and it continues to be surpassingly sad, the whole saga. Re Milch--ALSO very funny! I know him slightly through the writing program at Penn, where he came as a visiting instructor for a brief span. He's arguably a brilliant screen writer, but I can't recall anyone ever saying he was....pleasant or nice! Another very difficult and flawed man. BTW, the model for the book I will one day write about Jim is _Greene on Capri_, by the marvelous (late) British novelist Shirley Hazzard. She got to know Greene in his final years as they both vacationed on Capri. A portrait of the Lion in Winter. She is so fine a writer that one can only view her brief and incisive portrait of Greene as aspirational.
Amazing that you know both of the antagonists in my story!! Here's another segment of it.
After the panel discussion was over, you can imagine that the attendees in the audience -- who I thought were all Hollywood folks -- were milling around each of us, wanting to ask us questions. I had a few around me. And I was absolutely horrified ... make that HORRIFIED ... that one of them was a reporter from the New York Times. Holy @#$%! I didn't know there were reporters in the audience. I pleaded with the guy to *not* quote me saying 'asshole'. 'Please, PLEASE, don't quote me saying that word. It will be the end of me'. And he said, 'Don't worry. We're not even allowed to print that word." Ha! Today, I pride myself that I let loose with a word that failed their 'all the news that's fit to print' criterion. On the other items, I'm afraid to say I know neither Green nor Hazzard. Are you going to write a novel or a biography? And what university are you at?
This is the issue has been weighing on my mind too. Thank-you for sharing your thoughts on what seems to be the frightening conundrum of what do choose when there are no preferred options on the table.
While no choice is perfect, this issue is actually very clear: Biden or Hitler.
All blue all the way, or we will find ourselves reliving an episode from history we will regret deeply. My two cents.
Carolyn, Jim Watson.
I should add ... meeting Watson was very unpleasant. I introduced myself and held out my hand for a polite handshake. He extending his but it was like a wet-noodle. I think he thought he was belittling himself to shake my hand.
Ah yes! Not only do I know who he is but I've met him! Twenty-six years ago, we were part of a panel discussion, hosted by the Sloan Foundation at Warner Bros Studios, about the way scientists were traditionally depicted in Hollywood films. It was a very eventful discussion. First, it was where I first met Richard Dawkins and, because we were on the same side of the argument (which became somewhat intense), we bonded and became friends. Second, I ended up calling one of the guys from Hollywood an 'asshole'. It was the NY city street kid coming out in me!
In case this sounds unbelievable, here's the article: https://archive.ph/APr1j
And here is the photo that ran with the article (which is not shown in the link above):
http://carolynporco.com/about/photos/1998-carolyn-porco-james-watson-david-milch.html
Milch is the guy I called an asshole. He deserved it. Just read what he had to say about scientists.
Dear Dr. Porco,
I understand your apprehensions about the presidential election. I understand a lot of people have fears and apprehensions about it.
However, I'd like to point out something:
The same people who've been talking about Mr. Trump for the last several years, and telling frightening stories about him, are exactly the same people who've been saying that Mr. Biden is "Sharp as a Tack" for the last several years and anyone who questions this is a liar, who's watching "Deep Fakes" and "Cheap Fakes."
These sources have Proven to be deceiving the public about Mr. Biden's deteriorated condtion.
The extent to which we've been deceived on many other things is not known.
What we do know is that they've been deceiving us.
And the question is, just how much of the stories of Mr. Trump have been exaggerations
or pure fabrications?
I would suggest, though, that if the news sources you trust have you in a state of fear
I honestly suggest that you look into other sources of news that haven't been proven to be
deceiving the American Public.
Best Regards,
Scott Kellogg
Scott ... I am *certain* that what is being said about Trump is not an exaggeration. I am from NYC. New Yorkers were well aware of Trump and his failed businesses and blustery ego-maniacal lying behavior. Even among Republicans, Trump got only something like 18% of the vote in the 2016 Election in NYCity. Moreover, he was President for one term and did a stupendous amount of damage across the board in 4 years ... from over a million dead Americans to backing out of international agreements. Read this from Reuters (a news organization) about what happened after Trump pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explainer-how-close-is-iran-having-nuclear-weapons-2024-04-18/ We've all known that Biden was getting old and less sharp. The first 10 mins of the debate were terrible. But he came back after that and was ok. He has a fantastic track record for bringing us back from the mess created by Trump and for putting into place legislation and programs to help ordinary Americans. The economy is doing well, jobs have increased tremendously since he's been in office, he got us out of the pandemic etc. I could go on.
Dr. Porco,
Please remember, in this case you have no direct knowledge of the man except what appears in the media. In this case your 'measuring instrument' has been shown to be out of calibration.
They're been proven to be Lying about Biden.
They've been lying about Trump for years.
Do you truly believe "The economy is doing well?"
I honestly think you should open yourself up to some new newsmedia.
(PS. The original 2015 Iran Nuclear deal was to give Iran nuclear weapons in 10 years.
That's next year.)
So where do you get your news from?
I incidentally don't pay much attention to 'the media' for the very reason that most of it is owned by corporations and they want Trump in. So they are very pro-Trump.
I follow individual journalists.
Honestly, I don't think there are any unbiased journalists right now, in the middle of an election year.
But, I can tell you some of the things I try to avoid:
- Any journalist promising the end of the world if their candidate doesn't win.
- Any journalist with an obvious axe to grind.
- Any journalist who lies to protect their preferred candidate.
- Any journalist who wants freedom of speech, but only for their side.
- Any journalist who only tells you half the story. Their half.
These people aren't journalists.
They are activists.
And you'll never get an unvarnished truth from an activist.
They make their money by stirring up your emotions to generate clicks.
And, I'm sorry to say, the way you describe how troubled you've been, makes me think you've been listening to activists.
Anyway, it's dinner time.
You have a Happy Fourth of July!
Carolyn, I parroted some of the same fears you mentioned in your article. I cried it from the rooftop before the election - danger, danger! But… we have long allowed the interests of the very few, rich and powerful people to pilfer the coffers of the middle class. Wages have been stagnant for decades, and inflation has not, with corporate interests realizing an almost 500% gain and, when balanced against inflation, nearly nothing for anyone else. Trump's claim on his financial disclosure that he paid $750 in federal taxes his last year in the White House confirmed what I already knew- Congress has sold the nation to the highest bidder. With Citizens United, SCOTUS codified the theft in law, much like they have opened the door for a dictator with their current immunity stunt. All of this happened because people sat out the 2016 election and handed the reigns of the country over to a narcissistic rapist. I can understand the dissolution. The public is becoming depoliticized, seeing no reason to vote. America’s epitaph will read, “ Died of greed and apathy”
Carolyn, first, thank you for again taking the time to respond. I intentionally withheld this final reply for this morning because I wanted to have some time to remind myself about the breadth of subject matter that Carl Sagan wrote about. I regularly still teach two of Carl's essays: One called "Chauvinism," the other, and my all-time favorite, "Is There Intelligent Life on Earth?" Both are brilliant examples of making profound points by adopting a novel perspective. The one expands our perspective by asking us to consider that there might be forms of life that are not carbon-based. The other conducts the thought experiment: what would an alien craft with the capabilities of a Voyager or a Galileo, sent whizzing by Earth, be likely to tell its senders about the nature of life on our planet? Both are science-based pieces, but they make marvelous, penetrating points about _us_ that can easily be described as having a "politics." Thinking of those, I wanted to say: aren't the most effective political commentaries by scientists those that are grounded in science and reflections on the scientific method as a means of discovering truth? But then I went to the bookcase and pulled out _Billions and Billions_, the last collection of Carl's essays. And there....we find essays on, among many things, besides the climate problem (which were the ones I remembered), essays on....abortion....when life begins....on war-making...on societal morality, writ large. These may have immense credibility because we already know the author and respect his brilliance; but his ability to publish essays like that are also partly a function of his fame. The same words submitted by an unknown author might not have drawn the interest of Random House. Who knows? My point is that Carl ranged far and wide in his subject matter. And so what this exercise showed me was that it was in fact inappropriate of me to suggest, implicitly, in my original comment, that you stick to science and stay clear of politics. It is just not possible for me to support that view, on reflection. Apologies, therefore--and to those on the thread who have been detained by my many words. This has however helped me think through this issue of what great scientists write about (I am dealing with it in my planned short book about the "great man of science" I mentioned a few messages ago). Now very briefly, to return to the question you ask: re. "human nature," the seeming propensity of very free societies to reach a point of disintegration....This is an intriguing and it seems to me unanswerable question. The historian I was trained to be wants to say that the author of the essay on Plato took a rather extreme shortcut by moving from The Republic to the "fading authority of elites" as a general or universal phenomenon where freedom reigns. I want to say that the devil will always be in the details--and in any case there are not that many historical examples of this. Still: that author says that "when elites are despised and full license is established to do 'whatever one wants,' you arrive at what might be called late-stage democracy. There is no kowtowing to authority here, let alone to political experience or expertise." We nod in recognition of the problem. The popular expression of disbelief and even contempt for elites, and for _expertise_, which is so bedrock to the MAGA phenomenon, is also a problem in establishing truths that can be commonly ascribed to (because of the procedures of verification--one of the great contributions of scientific thinking to civilization!) Our society seems cast adrift....but drifting in such a way as to render it exquisitely vulnerable to those with authoritarian designs. I am absolutely laid low by this phenomenon--as are so many of us who have devoted their careers to seeking and establishing and acting on "that which is true." You suggest that knowing this weakness in open and free societies, we may be able to improve the situation. I would not claim to know where it would be wise to take the first step, but I am definitely interested to know what you and your readers may think about this. I am all ears.
Peter ... Thank you very much for this. I can tell you are a scientist at heart. And I'm so glad that you agree now about Sagan. Carl took his training in critical thinking, sashayed into a number of 'societal' issues and gave his shot at a rational, fact-based evaluation and, where he saw one, a solution. That is what I most admired about him. He was cross-disciplinary and fearless. He got himself arrested at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site near Las Vegas in 1987 to demonstrate against nuclear proliferation. To me, that's what scientists -- at least those who are gifted in encapsulating difficult ideas in understandable language for the masses -- should be doing: illustrating what application of reason and rational thinking to a big thorny problem can do in solving, first step of which is establish guidelines for thought and next, butt heads with the authorities if you must. On a different subject ... are you going to tell us who this 'great man of science' was/is?
Thank you so much Carolyn. That story about Carl is a great one! I shall see the "great man of science" in about 2 or 3 hours, at a 4th of July gathering. We all sort of cringe in expectation. My clues are that 1) he is a Nobel laureate; 2) apart from Dr. Shockley, he is probably the modern scientist whose reputation has descended the most from its pinnacle; 3) like Andrew Sullivan, the elitist author of the Plato essay, he is unabashedly still an adherent of the argument in the egregious book _The Bell Curve_ by Charles Murray and Prof. Hernstein. 4) He is _very_ old. In the eternal words of my ancestors: oy! I imagine you will figure out the identity of this fallen figure. My relationship with him over nearly 20 years is very complicated and has supplied innumerable occasions for reflections on personal and professional morality (among other topics!)
Sorry but no name is coming to mind. Could it be at this individual is so far out of my area of expertise that I've never heard of him?
One last comment from me on this post ... Today is a general election in the UK in which the conservative Tories, who have been in power for the past 14 years, are expected to be swept out of office and replaced with the Labor Party. The Tories have been deeply unpopular and so the election is expected to be a landslide. Should be interesting to watch.
Practically speaking, what can I do? What effect can I possibly have on such a large scale? What is worst for me is the sense of powerlessness I feel here. I've been saying for years that we are modeling the decline of an empire and that living during that sort of time scares me, in the sense that we are leaving this mess for the next generations to mop up, and we are not equipping them properly to handle this. Our education system has been undermined by the Republicans, and the erosion continues, and seems to be accelerating. Witness the legislation to mandate old testament crap in the classroom. On a lighter note, I can't wait to see how the new law will be "handled " in various higher education settings in Louisiana ;)