A user’s comment about Mussolini’s preferred system of government and its origin in Giovanni Gentile’s political theories has led me to consider a definition of terms and to offer any interested party an opportunity to argue about these definitions. The terms with which I concern myself are listed in the title: capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy. These are words loaded with heavy connotations. These words are often used entirely contrary to their meanings as ordinarily understood.
Definitions
First, capitalism. This is not a system of government, but ” an economic system (and an ideology) based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, “voluntary” exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. In a capitalist “market economy” decision-making and investment are determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.” (Wikipedia; fourteen of the terms used in this definition are discussed in separate Wikipedia articles but the links have been removed to reduce confusion. Emphasis has been added for clarity.)
Second, socialism. This is “a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.” (Wikipedia again.)
Third, communism. This is “the philosophical, social, political and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.
Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism, anarchism (anarchist communism) and the political ideologies grouped around both. All of these share the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism; that in this system there are two major social classes: the working class—who must work to survive and who make up the majority within society—and the capitalist class—a minority who derives profit from employing the working class, through private ownership of the means of production—and that conflict between these two classes will trigger a revolution. The revolution will in turn establish social ownership of the means of production, which according to this analysis is the primary element in the transformation of society towards communism.” (Wikipedia.)
Finally, fascism. This is “a form of radical authoritarian nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.” (Wikipedia.) This is the shortest definition, possibly because fascism is the least popular or justifiable form of government.
Oh, yes. Democracy. This is “a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. Democracy is sometimes referred to as “rule of the majority”. Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.” (Wikipedia; oddly, this definition only includes one link, to an article about parliaments.)
Discussion: Mischaracterizations
So far, this is just copied from Wikipedia. Where it gets controversial is when we go to defining the actual forms of government in existence around the world. Many countries call themselves “democratic” or “democratic socialist” but obviously are not. There is instead usually a degree of fascism, characterized by various levels of authoritarian or autocratic control, use of secret police techniques to suppress opposition, and autocratic direction of industry and commercial policy.
In fact, the United States of America is an example of this mischaracterization of real societal structures. The leaders call themselves “democratically elected” yet try to suppress democratic opposition and demonstrations with retaliatory measures announced on social media; they even give directions to industries to build their factories within the borders of the country. The minions try to suppress democratic rights and limit the ability of working class people to vote by reducing voting hours and opportunities and enhancing prerequisites for voting, using gerrymandering to distort election results in their favor. The leader consorts with and endorses the leaders of other countries that use similar methods or are even more extreme in their tactics. Another example is the Philippines with a “democratic” government and elections but the current leader is a demagogue with autocratic tendencies who has initiated a brutal crackdown on all users of “illegal drugs” of any sort; he openly advocates the murder of anyone even suspected of involvement in drugs. The leader of our country has praised the leader of the Philippines and other autocrats while denigrating countries with more democratic governments.
Problems with Democracy
The problem with democracy as practiced in these countries is that the people, lacking education, are susceptible to the blandishments of demagogues who offer simple solutions to complex problems. Once in power, these leaders institute fascist systems that fail to improve the lot of those who have elected them, in fact actively destroying the stability of the system they were elected to support.
Another recent publication referred to the American tendency to fetishize self-determination as a contributing factor in our gullibility in the face of propaganda and fake news.
The solution to the problems of government that we face is universal education that prepares the youth for critical analysis of claims by political demagogues. The current federal government in the US is actively seeking to destroy the objective educational systems that have been developed since universal free education was decreed to be a responsibility of local government. The secretary of the federal department of education has no experience of school-based educational systems and is devoted to a “home school” fantasy that would place the responsibility for education in the hands of parents. She ignores the fact that most parents of working-class children have to work all day and have no time to educate their children, much less ability or experience.
The Role of Capitalism
Capitalism is a natural method of producing and distributing goods. It is the most efficient system for valuing and providing goods that are in demand. Capitalism is not efficient at serving the needs of society as a whole when emergent situations distort markets or when markets are not free because of power or knowledge imbalances between the parties to transactions. Capitalism allows ambitious and unscrupulous people to unfairly take advantage of market conditions or the ignorance of the consumer. Capitalism also allows some people to amass fortunes while others have nothing; in fact, unregulated capitalism is the source of the vast inequalities that exist in most countries.
The sense of fairness impels some governments to institute rules that protect the weaker members of society from exploitation by stronger members. Regulation of capitalism is necessary to ensure distribution of needed goods and services to all members of society, regardless of their ability to contribute work or capital. Rules that prohibit deceptive advertising, inspectors to evaluate performance of good manufacturing practices, speed limits, regulation of capital markets, the requirement that banks reserve adequate capital to prevent “liquidity crises”, control of monopolies, and so on– the regulation of markets is a never-ending process attempting to maintain a balance between free markets and the ruthless exploitation of human capital.
The Difference Between Capitalism and Communism and their relation to Socialism
Communism is an ideology that fantasizes a future in which money and governments can be dispensed with. The attainment of this future always involves revolutionary action that destroys both the bad aspects of present society and the good aspects. People who endorse communism always want to destroy the current system and replace it with something “better” in a constant effort to reach towards that ideal future system. The problem with communism is that it fails to allow the good parts of the present to persist– destruction of the bad parts always comes with collateral damage. The “pushback” against destruction always forces the revolutionary elements to resort to force and coercion to obtain the re-distribution of inequalities.
Capitalism is a natural tendency for selfish people, which includes most of us. We naturally wish to own things and exercise control over them, to the extent that we are able. The trouble with capitalism is the development of vast inequalities of property and the consequent suffering of those who have little or nothing. Socialism is, colloquially, a way of distributing things in a fairer manner with the use of social structures such as health insurance, unemployment insurance, old age pensions, welfare, and so on. This soft socialism has the advantage that it can be administered democratically, through parliamentary structures; the more democratic a society is ( that is, the more the voting franchise is extended to all people ), the greater the demand for this sort of socialism.
“True” socialism, involving the common ownership of the means of production, is unwieldy because historically ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and corporations who wish to maintain their position and the status quo. Even an extreme democracy in which all people have voting rights (and do vote in their own enlightened interests) will face resistance from entrenched ownership interests when they are threatened. The isolation of government power from the power of ownership interests who use money to abuse political contests will be necessary to prevent reversion to primitive capitalism.
Large Countries Have Mixed Economic and Political Systems
The systems of the two largest countries in the world, India and China, can be taken as examples. India nominally has a democratic government, but there are numerous socialist aspects. China nominally has a communist government, but it falls short in numerous respects (particularly in the provision of health care) and had “liberalized” its economy since 1982, allowing numerous capitalist features and sponsoring many wealthy and powerful individuals. China also has many features of fascist governments, such as a vast secret police and censorship apparatus and overt nationalism. Overall, Chinese people have seen tremendous improvement in their material welfare, but they still suffer under an authoritarian/fascist apparatus in their government.
Conclusion
Capitalism is probably a precursor to all social systems. Democracy in small groups is an early improvement on the strong man system of government. Capitalism and democracy in small groups is compatible. Capitalism, democracy, and socialism are also compatible; socialist systems that are democratically imposed are stable and minimally coercive (imposing market regulations, a graduated income tax, and an estate tax are not in the same category as forcing people to relocate in order to correct population imbalances.) Democracy is not compatible with fascism or communism because of the large element of coercion required to shape society to idealistic or narcissistic ends.
These statements, in a New Yorker article about Don the Con and his theatrical “release” of the final batch of secret JFK assassination files, struck me as unusually clear and sinister:
But Trump acts in his own interest, and his pursuit of apparent openness has as its real end the undermining of public institutions and practices which depend on professionalism, independence, and trust.
Then there is this explanation of Don’s disdain for the “deep state”:
As David Frum has pointed out, what Trump’s surrogates really mean by “the deep state” is the rule of law. The idea that there are civil servants or functionaries within the government whose chief trait is loyalty to the Constitution and to the ongoing administration of the state is intolerable to the autocratic mind.
And this statement, in the last paragraph, even more sinister:
The effort today is not to get at the truth but to make the truth look unobtainable. By damaging people’s confidence not just in good government but in the separation of powers, which allows one part of the government to investigate another, you create an illusion of powerlessness that can only produce rage and despair, the two emotions that Trumpism profits from.
“Trumpism”– as if Don could produce a coherent, unified policy rather than simply skittering from one obsession to another and one lie to another– is not a coherent doctrine. It is a melange of talking points directed at the fears and anxieties of the raging white racist underclass, intended to increase their despair and alienation from their own government. The purpose of this blather is to distract his audience while he deconstructs the government as Obama left it and appoints his rich businessmen friends to high policy positions about which they know nothing– or absolutely the wrong thing.
The indictments of Manafort and his business partner are one thing, but the guilty plea of George Papadapoulos is another. Papadapoulos has admitted to contacts with Russian government officials starting in March 2016, when he became a Trump campaign worker. He tried to conceal these contacts from the FBI, but his emails showed that he was lying and he had no choice but to plead guilty. In addition, he was being supervised by higher members of the campaign staff, and even met with the candidate himself. He has admitted to acts that amount to collusion with the Russian government and the news media doesn’t appear to realize this. Mueller has already proven, by this guilty plea, that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government in an attempt to gain partisan advantage in the presidential election. It’s all over except for the impeaching, and now they’ll have to impeach Pence, too, because he was directly involved.
Paul Manafort, Rick Gates Surrender to Special Prosecutor; Hillary’s Uranium Deal Resurfaces
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire: sunrise through a pall of smoke from forest fires
Paul Manafort, who was in charge of Don the Con’s presidential campaign for a critical period in the spring of 2016– when he was trying to consolidate his primary wins to have an uncontested Republican National Convention– has surrendered to Mueller and the Special Prosecutor’s office this morning. Rick Gates, an associate of Manafort’s, has apparently also been indicted.
So who is Paul Manafort? Well, in 2006, he garnered a space in Trump Tower New York for a reported $3.7 million. He did not officially become part of Trump’s election team until April 2016, and was ousted a few months later when his recent work with the pro-Russian Ukrainian government that was overthrown by protesters in 2014 became widely known; they had paid him some $12 million in cash which was recorded in a hand-written ledger left behind by the fleeing Ukrainian government. Manafort has been an important part of Republican presidential campaigns since Reagan’s onslaught in 1976; he played a part in Reagan’s Republican National Convention and subsequent efforts by Republican presidential candidates.
Who is Rick Gates? He was a protege and long-time business associate of Mr. Manafort. He signed documents relating to a bank account in Cyprus that was apparently set up to receive payments from Eastern European clients. The exact charges that Gates and Manafort face may relate to money-laundering or other crimes, possibly even unrelated to the campaign; one charge described in the news is “conspiracy against the US”, which sounds like a campaign-related issue rather than simply giving advice to foreign autocrats. Mr. Manafort has worked for numerous dictators, such as former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and Ukrainian leader Victor Yanukovitch.
What relation do these charges have to do with Don the Con? So far, it is not known by the news media. One could speculate (and many have) that the charges are an attempt to pressure Manafort into turning state’s evidence against Don. That may be inaccurate; Manafort may simply be the first egregious lawbreaker that Mueller has chanced upon. The evidence against Manafort has been very strong since before Mueller was even appointed because a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant was sworn out against Manafort (among others) before last year’s election. That ‘wire-tapping’ may have been the source of Don’s claim that Obama illegally surveilled him and Trump Tower because Don may have been incidentally recorded during that process. In fact, Obama had no role in the FISA work and may not have even seen any of their work product.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Manafort was in charge of Don’s campaign at the infamous meeting with Natalya Veselnitskaya ( a Kremlin-associated Russian lawyer ), Don Jr., and other campaign staff in June 2016, when she presented a memo that had been vetted by Kremlin operatives and was represented as “dirt” on Hillary Clinton directly from the Russian government.
The scale of this indictment can be guessed from Don the Con’s hysterical reaction on Twitter. Don repeatedly demanded to know why Hillary had not been indicted for her “selling out” American uranium mines to a Russian company, Rosatom, when she was secretary of state.
In reality, she was only one of several top Obama administration officials who signed off on the Rosatom deal; whatever strategic damage that has done to American interests is unknown. It does seem odd that the American government would allow a Russian government associated consortium to buy the rights to some 20% of American uranium mining capacity ( although it appears that only 11% of US uranium is being produced by this company ). Since 2010, Rosatom has owned a majority stake in Uranium One, the American uranium mining and production consortium, and in 2013, Rosatom obtained 100% control of the company. Unfortunately, Russia doesn’t have a license to export uranium from the United States, so Russian “control” of one-fifth of US uranium deposits is notional. What is more, a nuclear non-proliferation expert told Politifact that Russia’s buying control of Uranium One “had as much of an impact on national security as it would have if they set the money on fire. . .”
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) (on which the Secretary of State sits as well as the Attorney General), the Utah state government’s nuclear regulator, the secretaries of the Department of Defense, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security, and the heads of the Office of the US Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy all had to sign off on this deal, so Hillary’s role as secretary of State in approving it was small.
Perhaps not coincidentally, some nine of the Russian and foreign participants in the deal are said to have given the Clinton Foundation $145 million; as Don claimed in June 2016, “Clinton approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.” However, Clinton claimed that she was not personally involved in approving the deal, and her assistant secretary of state for such affairs backed her up and said she did not intervene. A total of nine government agencies signed off on the deal. In addition, the bulk of the money given to the Clinton Foundation came from the former owner of Uranium One, who had divested himself of the company in the fall of 2007, eighteen months before Clinton became Secretary of State.
Other non-coincidences include a half-million dollar speaking fee for an engagement in Russia was paid to Bill Clinton by a Russian bank involved in the deals, in 2010, just when the Rosatom purchase was being approved. Of course, Bill collected a hundred million dollars in speaking fees altogether, so one speech more or less makes little difference to him.
A point man for Putin in the US, Vadim Mikerin, was under FBI investigation starting in 2009. He apparently was responsible for bribery and other misdeeds related to Russian attempts to gain influence in the atomic energy business.
The Hill reported two weeks ago that since 2009 the FBI was investigating whether Russia had been trying to gain influence or control in the US uranium industry and had “gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States.” This information was available to the CFIUS at the time the deal was approved but apparently the deal was so insignificant from the point of view of national security that it was approved anyway.
This information was sourced from the Guardian, the New York Times, Politifact, The Hill, CNN, and NBC this morning at 8:30 AM Eastern time.
Al Rodbell
Californai 1 day ago
To evaluate the benefits of increased production requires quantifying the harm, which requires an in depth knowledge of biochemistry but also epidemiology, an arcane and difficult set of skills. Donald Trump has chosen to eliminate those possessing them from doing these evaluations, so his pronouncements are within the world of partisan acrimony.
Trump has found the way to turn the vast complexity of government, the decision of what has to be regulated and what can be in the free market into a casino. His satisfaction is in the only way he has ever known, persona aggrandizement. But turning studies such as this article into “fake liberal news” he has control of the levers of power, and in effect he is both the owner of the casino and the primary player.
Not only will he get political contributions, but the timing of his pronouncements will move markets, that he can skillfully have positions that enhance his wealth. The perfect example was his seeming incoherent back and forth on abandoning or assisting the Puerto Rico debt, with each statement moving the bond market tens of billions of value.
Certainly, he personally could have gained billions, well disguised since he has breached the norm of disclosure of his families wealth. Not only hasn’t he cleaned out the swamp, he is the swamp.
mother of two
IL 21 hours ago
Conservatives tout the virtues of free markets and say that corporations can run projects much more efficiently than a lumbering governmental bureaucracy. While that is sometimes true, I think there are distinct places for both government and market-run structures. What should never be confused is that businesses operate for profit–shareholders and their board first, maybe others. Some things, such as regulations in various industries, should be under the government because unlike corporations, whose bottom line is profit, the government is supposed to be operating for the public good. Especially in this administration, the two are confused and public health is at risk because of it. Let’s not forget that the Flint water crisis came under the direction of a businessman governor, Snyder, who wanted to save money. At the risk to the health of Flint’s residents.
Excited Crowd Outside Mueller’s Office Awaits First Arrest
A crowd estimated in the hundreds of thousands waited outside Special Prosecutor Mueller’s office for news of the first arrest in his investigation– a New Yorker satirical piece notes today. But it’s true, there is going to be an indictment or something happening soon– the story was first broken by CNN Friday night. Don the Con’s henchmen have been noising it about that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was colluding with: British former intelligence agent Michael Steele– a private citizen, so not subject to any laws prohibiting foreign government participation in the campaign– and that somehow makes Don’s direct collusion with the Russian government just “fake news” …
From an op-ed article in the NYT by David Brooks on October 23 (yesterday):
And yet the more I think about it, the more I agree with the argument Yale Law professor Stephen L. Carter made in his 1998 book “Civility.” The only way to confront fanaticism is with love, he said. Ask the fanatics genuine questions. Paraphrase what they say so they know they’ve been heard. Show some ultimate care for their destiny and soul even if you detest the words that come out of their mouths.
If, on the other hand, you fight your natural fight instinct, your natural tendency to use the rhetoric of silencing, and instead regard this person as one who is, in his twisted way, bringing you gifts, then you’ll defeat a dark passion and replace it with a better passion. You’ll teach the world something about you by the way you listen. You may even learn something; a person doesn’t have to be right to teach you some of the ways you are wrong.
Second, you greet a fanatic with compassionate listening as a way to offer an unearned gift to the fanatic himself. These days, most fanatics are not Nietzschean supermen. They are lonely and sad, their fanaticism emerging from wounded pride, a feeling of not being seen.
gemli
is a trusted commenter Boston 19 hours ago
The problem isn’t the individual obnoxious loudmouth at a ball game. It’s the 63 million of them who got together, conjured up a monster from their collective Id and sent him to the White House. Speaking kindly to people we disagree with is a fine idea, but the consequences of their collective stupidity is beyond our control.
Then there’s the fundamental issue of their grievances. They feel resentment, anxiety and a sense of being left behind. The fact that they weren’t savvy enough to know the president was a lying, crotch-groping fraud might explain their sorry circumstances. Blaming brown people and immigrants for their declining economic security seems silly. But they put their faith in a guy who echoed their prejudices, demeaned education and hurled insults rather than uplifting the country.
I don’t despise these people, and gratuitous, impotent anger isn’t going to get us anywhere. But I’m pretty sure that rational discourse, presenting evidence and appealing to their magnanimous nature isn’t going to advance the conversation very much.
These folks didn’t make a faux pas. They may have brought down Armageddon upon us by giving Dumbzilla access to nuclear weapons. So it’s natural that our response might be proportional to the size of the offense.
I’m betting that Democrats will flock to the polls next year. If we shift the balance of power, I hope our opponents will speak kindly to us, and show us lots of love.
Lisa Murphy
Orcas Island 4 hours ago
Trump is hurting my heart. I see it on the faces of others too( even on the faces of some talking heads on television). A man has died in the service of this country. What do we see? A large overweight mendacious white billionaire calling a tiny, pregnant widow in the throes of crushing loss, a liar. I unfortunately understand the loss of a son. Watching Kelly exploit his own grief in service to the loathsome trump, was another blow and threw me into a bout of renewed pain. I’m tired of being threatened by these people in the White House. I’m tired of watching every honorable thing being trampled into the mud. I’m tired of the regrettable Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her stony expression and one raised eyebrow, telling me who I can or cannot criticize.
Steve Bannon: A Dangerous Man and a “Leninist” Helping the Russians to Subvert Our Democracy
Steve Bannon at Breitbart was an early supporter of Don the Con, and he was rewarded for his effective propaganda work with an “adviser” position to the President. He has publicly stated that he wants to destroy the government, just like Lenin did in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917. Here’s a quote from a recent Smithsonian magazine article about Russia:
Unlike Marxism-Leninism, Lenin’s tactics enjoy excellent health today. In a capitalist Russia, Putin favors his friends [nepotism], holds power closely [autocracy] and doesn’t compromise with rivals [partisanism]. In America, too, we’ve reached a point in our politics where the strictest partisanship rules. Steve Bannon, the head of the right-wing media organization Breitbart News, who went on to be an adviser to the president [he has left government, but continues to agitate on Don’s behalf], told a reporter in 2013, “I’m a Leninist. . . I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy today’s establishment.” Of course he didn’t mean he admired Lenin’s ideology– far from it– but Lenin’s methods have powerfully modern appeal. Lenin showed the world how well not compromising can work. A response to that revolutionary innovation of his has yet to be figured out.
Bannon’s technique, extreme partisanship, in which one’s critics become demons and devils, has fractured the American body politic and induced a third of the public to support a completely incompetent and charming, attractive self-declared billionaire to the bitter end despite his admitted sexual predation, adultery, and extreme pettiness to his critics– with negative propaganda against his critics and lies about Don’s “policies” (Don’s main positive technique is to appoint destructive, extreme right-wing and white supremacist figures who are his partisans, like Sessions and Pruitt, to positions of power and allow them free rein to reverse Obama’s policies and bring government under the control of financiers, industrialists, and religious fanatic millionaires.) Millionaires are, of course, better people than those who are not wealthy– simply because they have money. There is no room for people who have no interest in being rich and never made a pile of money nor inherited wealth– Don the Con has explicitly denigrated the non-wealthy as “unsuccessful”, ignoring the fact that some principled people are not interested in accumulating wealth for its own sake.
Extreme partisanship does not stop at criticizing one’s opponent’s policies and tactics, but proceeds to name-calling and demonizing anyone who dares to criticize one’s own policies. It ends in intimidating, silencing, imprisoning or assassinating one’s opponents, even those who are insufficiently enthusiastic about the policies one wishes to institute, especially those who expose one’s secret, illegal tactics.
Extreme partisanship leads to resentment and ignites internecine strife, weakening the structure of society (the “establishment”); the eventual outcome is civil war, which under Lenin consumed Russia for ten years and wiped out what was left of polite society. This would be an undesirable outcome in the United States despite Bannon’s ardent wishes for destruction: civil liberties and human rights would suffer, gross domestic product and our standard of living would decline precipitously, and there would be more poverty, more imbalance of wealth, and more suffering and death.
Speaking of Russia, here’s another quote from the article that should be very disturbing to advocates of free democracy:
But if Russia no longer exports international Socialism, it has not stopped involving itself in other countries’ internal affairs. Which is not to suggest that other countries, including us, don’t sometimes do the same. But by turning the state’s secret and coercive forces actively outward, the Bolsheviks invented something new under the sun for Russia. It has found exporting mischief to be a great relief—and, evidently, a point of strategy, and of pride. On the street in Yekaterinburg, an older woman, recognizing Thomas and me as Americans, cackled with great glee. “Americans!” she called out. “Trump won! We chose him!” In June, James Comey, the former director of the FBI, testifying before Congress, said, “We’re talking about a foreign government that, using technical intrusion, lots of other methods, tried to shape the way we think, we vote, we act. That is a big deal.” The habit of Russian intrusion that Comey is talking about began at the revolution.
Fall sunrise over irrigation canal full of water from Sierra mountains
Two individuals have dominated the shocking daily newscasts: Harvey Weinstein, who has finally been exposed as a sexual predator using his powerful movie company to obtain young women for his personal abuse (and is a supporter of left-wing causes), and Bill O’Reilly, who has been known to be a sexual predator using his position in a “news” media organization to foist himself on fellow-workers ( and who is a right-wing ideologue.) Weinstein is out of his company, which is near collapse, but O’Reilly still has significant mojo and appears on Glenn Beck’s radio show as a regular Friday guest. O’Reilly was ousted from Fox in April, despite a four-year contract signed in February immediately after he reached a $32 million sexual abuse settlement . . . it seems the sudden loss of advertiser support when the situation was widely publicized doomed O’Reilly at Fox but he still has rabid supporters. Weinstein, a noted liberal, has no supporters and nothing but treatment at an asylum to look forward to.
Yet Fox News officially accused liberals of hypocrisy in their treatment of Weinstein. Many, many people have spoken out about Weinstein since the news broke, some of whom were aware of his behavior and now say they feel guilty for not doing enough to stop it. Women who were subjected to and even cooperated with Weinstein’s demands to further their careers or simply out of fear have also spoken out and it was agonizing to read. Virtually none of the women mistreated by O’Reilly have publicly said anything; whether there is a difference in their reactions based on their political leanings is hard to say.
Bottom line: no one ideology, left or right, has a corner on the sexual predator market. It’s time to end this kind of sick behavior once and for all with clear rules and chaperones if necessary. After all, lawyers have learned never to meet alone with Don the Con.
The Concept of Race Has No Scientific Basis
Dawn with sun partially obscured by smoke from forest fires 200 miles north
Here’s the thing: the whole concept of Negroid, Caucasoid, Asiatic, that is the whole idea of “race” is completely without scientific foundation according to a consensus of current-day physical anthropologists. These are the people who would be expected to know what is a race and what races people are. Here is a short summary of the findings of the scientific paper that established the consensus:
Abstract
Controversies over race conceptualizations have been ongoing for centuries and have been shaped, in part, by anthropologists. Objective
To assess anthropologists’ views on race, genetics, and ancestry.
Methods
In 2012 a broad national survey of anthropologists examined prevailing views on race, ancestry, and genetics.
Results
Results demonstrate consensus that there are no human biological races and recognition that race exists as lived social experiences that can have important effects on health.
Discussion
Racial privilege affects anthropologists’ views on race, underscoring the importance that anthropologists be vigilant of biases in the profession and practice. Anthropologists must mitigate racial biases in society wherever they might be lurking and quash any sociopolitical attempts to normalize or promote racist rhetoric, sentiment, and behavior.
This may come as a surprise to some people.
