What The Devil Wants

#366: Not What You Think

....................

I recently googled "What Does The Devil Want", and as expected, there were many religious attempts to define the answer.  In fact, many fell into the trap of self-confirmation (several church websites had  "Keeping you from Church and studying the Bible." as a central devilish concern).  Below, I make a few observations on the topic:

  * Apparently the origin of the word 'devil' involves the Greek for 'slander'.  I find that interesting because, at first glance, slander doesn't seem that big of a deal.  In 2016 a candidate for president made up outlandish charges (Your father plotted to kill JFK), and defamatory nicknames ("Lyin' Ted Cruz", "Crooked Hillary", "Low Energy Jeb").  But, instead of being sidelined for the devil's work, that candidate easily won his party's nomination, and the presidency.  Of course, when you think twice about it, the use of slander is war--in miniature.

  *  Another answer to our question comes from the place where the devil lives--or should we say 'lived' since he's surely dead--hell.  If heaven is its opposite, hell is full of misery and lost hope.  But, isn't the realm of hell simply what happens to a mind that has chosen what it knows to be wrong?  When we transgress, we move from the unitary, internal agreement that is heaven, to the miserable duality of knowing we've made a mistake: regret, shame, and self-punishment.

What the devil wants, using the heaven and hell spectrum, is for us to end up divided in our minds, hating what we do, yet doing it anyway.  That is, ignoring our conscience and suffering the consequences.  Perhaps the best way to get a person to abandon the ship of conscience is to tempt him with the idea that he can get away with wrong-doing.  And if a movement emerged that treated 'getting away with it' as a manly virtue, that mocked shame (for pussies) and apologies (wimps), and attracted a leader who was a marvel at communicating those lessons (by literally never paying a price for his multitude of serious transgressions), wouldn't that be the perfect vessel to fulfill the devil's desire?

  * Finally, though, the devil would have to exact his price: hauling his minions off to hell.  That, of course, is his overall goal, so once a deal is struck, his targets abandon their conscience, revel in the giddy delight of not getting caught, reassure themselves on this account by repeating the same slanders ("Our enemies aren't worthy.") until the price must be paid: defeat, and the rest of their lives in hell.  Of course what has happened is that without a conscience, their inner decision-making process is compromised, atrophies, and is then abandoned, in favor of directions from their leader, making the end inevitable.  The foolish impulse finds its way into action.  The body rebels, with nervous ticks, or their equivalent, on display.  Doom then finds its prey, like the haunting owl's hoot: "Woo, woo, woo, woo, woo!        

Every Day A Winner

 #365: Walking Away --> Sometimes Key To Success

............

I admire people who don't need life to turn out one way or another.  They wake up in the morning and navigate a best way forward, no matter what disappointments occur.  And, if thwarted, they simply recalculate based on their new reality.  This may involve resistance, or it may be time to move on.

A person who doesn't need a certain outcome in life, doesn't need to control reality.  Instead, the twists and turns of fate can be scanned for opportunity, and sometimes what at first seems like a second-best outcome, or alternate course, becomes an unforeseen windfall.  On the other hand, it's usually the case that disappointments in life send one down what are obviously secondary paths.  But even then, it's better to accept reality, and be grateful as one counts one's blessings.  That's because, if things aren't going to get any better, why not turn one's full attention to making the best of it--that is, aiming for every day a winner?

Which is how I feel about President Biden's agenda getting through Congress.  If it succeeds, that's a win. If it doesn't, that could possibly, in the end, be a second-best result, though still getting quite close to an ideal outcome.

Here's the rundown, as I see it, covering the main characters, their outlook, and a bottom line for each.  

President Biden: He'll take whatever deal he can get, including a trade with SineManchin that sees, at minimum, several programs (Child Care, Paid Leave, Free Community College, Pre-K For All Kids, extended Child Tax Credit, Medicaid for non-Participant States, ObamaCare Patches, Climate, Medicare Expansion) in exchange for passing the Bi-Partisan Infrastructure bill that SineManchin are eager to see become law. 

Joe Manchin: To win his senate seat in 2024 (at age 77), he wants to take a stand against government largesse.  He likes the Infrastructure spending, and might accept several programs as listed above, but in general, the less the better.  How much of his strategy is a pose that he can abandon?  We don't know.  My guess is that it's all for real; he won't budge--very much.

Kyrsten Sinema: Arizona is a relatively conservative 'purple' state with a lot of well-off retirees.  Sinema, much to the irritation of most Democrats, is trying to appeal to middle-of-the-road voters, and hoping she can get past any primary opponent when she runs for re-election in 2024 (at age 48).  She has scuttled Democratic party plans to tax the rich and corporations, along with a plan to sock it to the big pharmaceutical companies.  In general, like Manchin, she believes less is better and seems to be hoping nothing passes, save for the Infrastructure bill she helped shepherd through Congress.  Will she compromise, once she's established herself as a conservative Democrat?  I'm guessing she's willing to give up a little bit, but only as long as she's seen as a throttler.

Bernie Sanders: Sanders, and the other progressives in Congress, want the entire $3.5 billion over ten years, if not more.  They're likely to wait until the last possible moment to see if the other side blinks.  Then they'll accept a deal that's at least $1.5 trillion or more, over ten years, but nothing less.

In all cases, the likeliest timeline involves a November agreement, if there is one.  This is because the US would like to pressure other countries to pledge generously to the fight against Climate Change at the upcoming UN conference in Glasgow, Scotland, occurring Oct. 31 through November 12.

Even if the Biden Agenda passes with little to show, Climate-wise, there will be government action to announce at the conference.  The EPA's Michael Regan has rules for methane emissions, as well as energy production, if Congress fails to act.  But, ideally, the start of the conference would see an agreement announced based on the relatively ambitious Biden agenda. 

What might the second-best outcome be?  Unless SineManchin are bluffing, and desperately want their Bi-Partisan Infrastructure bill, signing the two bills will likely leave out quite a few component parts.  But, this would allow Democratic candidates to campaign on those extras. Democrats could say: "All we need are another two senators, and everything's doable, including...XYZ".  The focus would be on the specific programs, themselves--many very popular--rather than on the 'deal' that's unfolding and how much it would cost.

Could SineManchin be bluffing?  It's not likely, but certainly possible.  This would be a very well kept secret: that both senators told Biden when negotiations began that they needed to drag out the negativity, but that as long as they're seen as nay-sayers, they'll eventually say they wanted the Infrastructure bill too badly to hold out, and all or most of the 3.5T will pass.  Somewhat more likely is that nothing is passed, and much more likely that a small portion makes it through the wringer.   

What's the likelihood that Democrats keep the House and add two senate seats?  Most experts would say that this is very unlikely.  But, there are several things working in the other direction (as I explained in an earlier post):

* Biden's predecessor has been acting erratically, and could easily become too old for his role as party boss.  Plus, he has a record of making everything about him.  So, if his favored candidate is beaten by another Republican in a state primary, he may refuse to endorse the victor, ruining that candidate's chances.  Likewise, he may pick a flawed candidate, and that candidate wins his primary, but ruins the party's chances in the general.

* Covid could be on the way out.  If it is, or is for the most part, the nation's mood could improve dramatically.

* The economy could take off.  Despite Covid's Delta variant, the threat of inflation, and supply chain problems, the economy has been chugging along.  The most likely to disappear is inflation.  Most higher-level economists point to recent inflation pressures as being temporary.

* Anti-Vax fever among some Republican politicians is almost certainly a loser.  It is hard to believe there aren't Republican advisers trying to kill what is a bug-eyed 'painting yourself into a corner' position if there ever was one (the percent of voters who are vaccinated against Covid is probably close to 75% and the percent vaccination against Measles, etc., is nearly 100%).

What about a "We don't need this" approach from Bernie and the progressives?  Could it work?  In other words, if progressive Democrats refuse to pass the Infrastructure bill without the full $3.5 trillion over ten years also passing, would SineManchin blink?  Most political pundits would say it wouldn't work, since Biden himself has said the total price would likely be lower.  But who knows?  The power of "I don't need this." is often underrated.  And if Biden and SinaManchin had made a wink-and-nod deal in advance, it'd be the perfect thing for Biden to say "It'll be less." to erase any footprints (the deal where SineManchin act out, before changing their tune at the last minute).  And if you think about it, running for re-election on a popular platform, with very popular pay-fors (taxing the rich and corporations) isn't a bad consolation prize for the progressives.

It might even make for a winner of a day--but not until November 8th '22.

My point, though, is always aim to win the day, and that starts with being grateful, no matter what.

 

What's With All The *@?1`* WTF Language?

 #364: So What?

.................

Like most modern Americans I hear everybody's 'few choice words' and consider it par for the course.  But let's take a closer look:

When someone swears, what are they really doing?  They're breaking a taboo.

But what if we switched taboos?  What if, to express outrage, frustration, independence, or just for emphasis, the custom became to briefly remove an item of clothing?

"Not fair", you say, since speech is much more of an abstract expression than is covering up/uncovering our bodies.

Actually, 'mooning' someone, or more often other people, plural, does seem a bit like cursing.  And our little experiment reveals something about swearing: that it's more 'attack' than 'defense'; it's aimed at another person's comportment and standards, or more often, general societal standards, rather than ones' own.  This becomes easy to understand if you imagine someone who's so isolated they know no one can hear; and when they swear, the words have no strength; they're but weak imitations of the real thing, ringing hollow in the speaker's mind.

Which is the reason I don't swear, save for the occasional "big, big 'D'" as the song goes.  But does it bother me when others swear?  Yes and no.  In the end I'm invariably unaffected, so I end up not caring.  I do feel sorry for someone who fails to use choice words sparingly and in just the right situation.  And it does bother me, initially--as it takes a split second to confirm the speaker's intent, just as a sudden lunge in your direction, in a crowd, is disconcerting, briefly, until you realize someone just wants to shake you hand.

Another reason I don't swear is that like removing one's clothes and standing naked in front of strangers, the common prohibition on the mixing of public and private spaces is a handy rule of thumb for discerning appropriate conduct.  The exceptions, like allusions, allegorical art, the manipulation of symbols, and so on, are what fuels creativity; but if not partially hidden from view, that creativity simply fails, due to over-exposure.

Smart Money On Clean Energy

#363: Why Climate Change Isn't Just Another Ozone Hole

.........................

For those of you too young to remember, the '80s and '90's had what at first glance seems like something similar to Climate Change as an urgent issue: an ozone hole over Antarctica.  Looking back at what was a successful campaign to end the use of the chemical causing the problem, CFCs, some would say, "Hey, we'll solve Climate, too, just give us time."  Except that's not how it works with Climate.  That's because almost all economic activity uses fossil fuels or causes carbon to be released.  This is changing, slowly, with innovations in energy, agriculture, and materials allowing progress, but altering what fuels our economy uses is a much bigger challenge than banning a single chemical used as a refrigerant.

That's why governments must lead the way; for obvious reasons (spreading the word, raising the enormous funds necessary, and getting it done ASAP) as well as to signal to other nations that we're a team player.

Surprisingly, the first countries to change over to a clean energy economy won't be the ones taking the biggest hit, but those likely to be the big winners, globally.  Don't we want the Googles, Apples and Twitters of renewable energy technology to be in the US?  Besides, taxes on carbon (a national tax as well as international tariffs) are inevitable, so those who change now pay little in the long run.  And who wants to be the last one to buy a gas-powered car?  If it has no resale value, gasoline is taxed much more vigorously, and gas stations have all but disappeared, that's a losing proposition.

And where are we in getting ready to surf the coming wave?  A major first step in the right direction is currently awaiting passage in the Senate.  President Biden's Build Back Better policy agenda would mean walking down the beach towards that clean energy wave on the horizon.  Ironically, the senator least likely to go along with Biden's plans is from a state that would greatly benefit from the government spending involved.

Hopefully something will remain of our president's Climate agenda if and when BBB passes the Senate.  The obvious thing to do at that point, aside from talking up the economic gold mine that is being innovative and cutting-edge, rather than late to the party, is for Democrats to get to 52 seats in the Senate, and then get rid of the filibuster, making the governing process much easier, and enacting what are popular Democratic policies.

The chances of that happening aren't as long as some would think.  Here's my top-10 list of what might happen to cause the Dems to get lucky.

And here is Ed Kilgore with the suggestion that Dems reserve the highly popular Medicare Expansion provisions (vision, dental, hearing) for 2022, when voters would be reminded why they want to vote Democratic.

 

How To Handle China

 #362: Answer:  The US Will Take These Steps If You Don't Behave

........................

The reunification of China is not something I oppose, and I imagine that is how most Americans view the matter.  What does irritate is a 'husband' telling a 'wife' that she must submit, without first attracting her with righteous action.

A recent speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping restated his desire for a peaceful reunification with Taiwan, a self-governing island since China's civil war ended in 1949.  Few people have any problem with this sentiment.  Instead, the reason Taiwan has said 'no', and the US has backed them up, is because Xi's China wants its 'wife' more than it wants to please her.

Obviously, everybody has a lot on the line.  With the world's economy intimately connected, any hostilities, let alone an invasion of Taiwan, would bring ruin to our lives, planet-wide.  To avoid such a mess, the US should communicate to Xi that if he doesn't behave, the US will take the following steps:

 * Publicly link Xi to 'the husband who desires his wife, but won't please her'.  This shaming would be a big embarrassment, and if it were communicated in concert with other world leaders, the effect would be world class humiliation.

 * A next step, if necessary, would be to publicly urge the relocation of business links to other markets

 * Yet another step would be to offer incentives for said relocation, and for active government investment in necessary substitute supplies of things like rare earth metals

 * Finally, if Xi won't abide by the laws of marital engagement, a defensive military posture can be augmented

Ideally, none of the above would be necessary.  A private message, signed by the US and its allies would lay out the above four steps and ask that Xi 'attract' Taiwan in his bid for reunification.

Will 'Plant A Billion Trees' Work?

#361: A Local Cautionary Tale

........................

The fight against Climate Change involves cutting emissions of greenhouse gasses, first and foremost.  Eventually, we'll also want to remove carbon from the air, since much of what we emitted in the past century will otherwise be in our atmosphere for a long time, causing Climate Chaos.  In some regions this will involve artificially removing carbon.  In most of the world, however, planting grasses at sea, and trees on land is the obvious, natural solution.  

Unfortunately, there are problems with our efforts at planting trees.  As this Vox article by Benji Jones points out, trees need water, the right soil, and usually, cooperation from the locals.  Otherwise, if planted in the middle of a hot summer, in inhospitable soil, or in a field used for grazing, most seedlings will perish. 

A local example:  A decade or so ago a particularly curvy section of a local highway was straightened by the state highway department, and in its former curvy areas trees were planted.  I imagine the on-paper master plan for this project had generic blobs of trees on each side of the roadway.  Someone then asked a tree person what kinds of trees should be planted.  The answer was probably smaller ornamental offerings so as not to eventually pose the threat of a taller tree falling on the road.

When one drives through this area these days, the planted trees have suffered from deer damage, something the state's experts, living in an urban area, perhaps didn't consider.  In this more rural location, trees need the following:

* water, in particularly dry months, during the year after planting

* minimal fencing to keep deer from eating and rubbing

* mowing, to keep competing vegetation from overcoming planted trees

Ironically, 'volunteer' trees will take over if allowed.  For Climate, this is probably the likeliest solution.  Unfortunately, this could easily result in massive hackberry, oak and maple within yards of the roadway, a no-no for a highway department that must constantly fight fallen limbs and trunks (Fun Fact: nearly a century ago a wealthy local planted sycamores along this roadway, county line to county line.  Unfortunately, though beautiful, they were all removed, in their prime, to widen the road).

So, the obvious solutions are a fall planting to avoid a spring planting plus drought, in addition to minimal fencing (I re-purpose livestock fencing for my trees).  Alternatively, as I do, mowers can be on the lookout for 'volunteers' growing in the right location.  These are often the result of squirrel know-it-all foresight, and can be flagged and mowed around.  This takes a good eye and a grounding in tree-identification.  But this still leaves deer as spoilers, so best to settle for fencing.

Top Ten Events Leading To A Democratic Victory In 2022

 #360: Will These Events Happen?  Possibly.

......................

Predicting the future isn't easy, but we can imagine the future based on possible events, and be fairly sure--if those events are significant--about where they might lead.

So, let's explore ten events, ranked according to the certainty they'd mean a Democratic victory in the 2022 midterms.  #10 is the least likely, #1 the most:

#10:  Democrats attract 'mirror' candidates for congressional districts in which the Republican candidate is heavily favored.  Mirror candidates promise to reflect constituent opinion, rather than to offer their own.  They run as 'outsiders', bringing sanity to Washington.  The idea is to peel off enough independents to deprive the traditional Republican candidate of a sure win.  Candidates would reflect constituent opinion by holding town halls, commissioning polls, and setting up online feedback mechanisms, then voting accordingly.  Direct democracy's lure in the tech age might be hard for the independent-minded to resist.

#9:  Afghanistan fades from the headlines, and instead of periodic reminders of tragic death and destruction, the realization that we removed ourselves from an endless war gains the upper hand.  Ideally, the Taliban would have immediate difficulties governing and have to rein in their worst tendencies in order to secure international investment.  Or, even better, their autocracy collapses due to intransigence, incompetence and recession-induced infighting, leading to elections and an internationally recognized unity government.

#8:  Iowa senator Chuck Grassley dies, aged 89, just weeks before his 2022 election contest.  Iowa Republican party leadership, controlled by Trump loyalists, selects a replacement nominee who is unprepared for prime time.  He makes several gaffes, and fumbles softball questions from Fox News hosts.  The Democratic candidate draws enough independent voter support to squeak through to victory, preserving a 50-50 Senate.

#7:  The various voter-suppression efforts at the state level (Texas, for example) have the perverse effect of egging on marginal Democratic voters, who want to vote based on some of the other items on this list.  This reverse psychology also energizes the organizers tasked with getting out the vote.

#6:  The Delta variant of the Covid-19 virus becomes increasingly confined to areas of the country where vaccination rates are lowest.  These areas correspond to regions where Republican voters constitute a clear majority.  With a death rate differential (deaths in Red areas minus those in Blue areas) averaging perhaps 500 a day, for a year, there'd be something like a hundred thousand fewer Republican votes by election day.  In a few close races (perhaps Georgia's senate contest), that could be the difference.

#5:  Our 45th president suffers extreme embarrassment as New York state's investigation into the Trump Corporation uncovers massive tax evasion and insider coddling.  Add in his other looming, legal headaches and the publicity is sure to register with 2022 voters.  Will his hand-picked governor, senate and house candidates want him on stage, campaigning with them?  But of course.

#4:  During his two years out of office, come 2022, our previous president has kept up his high fat, high cholesterol, low fiber diet.  His legal predicaments cause intense stress.  This eventually catches up with him.  Hobbled by a heart condition, stroke, or other ailment, he's a shadow of his pre-presidential self and unwilling to expose his weakness in a public attempt to fire up the Republican base.  The party is rudderless just when it needs a shot in the arm.  

#3:  The vaccination rate nears something approaching 'herd immunity' in most metro and suburban areas.  Cases, hospitalizations and deaths plummet as the virus is confined to areas of low vaccination.  This stark contrast highlights the shocking Republican embrace of anti-vax sentiment in states like Florida.  Even greater numbers of suburban voters choose their Democratic candidate, joined by a small but significant number in rural areas.

#2:  The repeated federal spending on the pandemic, coupled with the Biden agenda's stimulus effect, means the economy is in line for a dynamic growth rate last seen in the 1990s.  Suddenly, the main pillar of Republican attacks on the Democratic agenda crumbles, bringing down Republican hopes for retaking the House and Senate.

#1:  Because of his intense need for adoration and, in turn, control over others, our previous president has managed to lower the chance of success for Republicans in a number of key races.  Instead of strong conservative candidates able to appeal to independents, his weight is instead behind toadying yes-men, each with a bumbler's single-minded resolve: to make the boss look good.  This only brings upset defeats to the fore.

I'm leaving out Inflation, Abortion and Climate, as they're either ambiguous (inflation), inflame passions on both sides (abortion), or are likely more of the same (climate).

A recent article by Matt Cooper in the Washington Monthly makes the case that the 10-year $3.5 billion Build Back Better bill now before Congress (free Community College, free Child Care, Paid Leave, extended Child Tax Credit, expansion of Medicare, and a big first step on Climate Change among other things) isn't necessary for a Democratic victory in the midterms.  And neither is the 10-year $1 billion bi-partisan Infrastructure bill.  Three possible outcomes, RE: the Biden Agenda, as I see them, ranked least to most likely to assist Democrats in 2022:

#3: The Infrastructure bill passes; the Build Back Better bill does not.  We should remember that, on its way to the Senate, Republicans in the House, egged on by the former president, voted against the bi-partisan infrastructure bill, a wildly popular spending plan, just to deny Biden a win.  Votes against were also being readied as of last week.  In '22, faced with opponents who remind voters of this shameful, heedless selfishness, what's a loyal, Trumpified Congressman to say?

#2: Neither bill passes.  As Cooper points out, this allows for an aggressive Democratic message in 2022.

#1: The Two Bills, Linked, Pass Together.  Even if the price tag is brought down significantly, the 'win' would be contagious.

According to this informative tweet, the specific $$ amounts (in billions), over ten years, for several likely items in the Build Back Better bill are: 

Child Care and Pre-K: $465                                                                                                                            

Paid Leave: $450

Climate: $625

Free Community College: $120

IRS Funding $80 

Total: $1.74 trillion, almost exactly half the original Biden plan.  This, or a similar scaled-back version would presumably receive the blessing of Democratic hold-out senators, given the following tweaks: 

* Allow fossil fuel sequestration to count toward renewable energy (once that proposed technology has been proven reliable).  

* Make the first two items means-tested (if you're rich enough you don't need them), which would bring the total down to the 1.5 T maximum identified by one key senator.  Note: few rich kids would be going to community college.

* Task the IRS with providing taxpayers all they need to file a digital return.  Make it an easy few minutes online for the vast majority of filers.  This would surely be very popular, and help congress swallow the 'increased enforcement' pill--also very popular.

Paying for the above would be a handful of items selected from the right-hand side of the linked tweet, above.

...............

10/13 Update: Ed Kilgore, in New York magazine, suggests that Democrats hold off on the very popular Medicare expansion plank in the Biden agenda, and save that for a reconciliation bill in 2022.  This would mean that just when voters were making up their minds about who to vote for during the summer and fall of 2022, they'd be reminded that Democrats were voting to include vision, hearing and dental care benefits in Medicare.   If this were ranked in the above list, I would place it somewhere between #3 and #5.