31 U.S.C. § 3108: An obligation issued under sections 3102–3104(a)(1) [Treasury bonds, notes and bills] and 3105–3107 [savings bonds] of this title may not bear the circulation privilege.
This law has been on the books long enough to control all outstanding Treasury debt instruments.
The “circulation privilege”? Yep, it means what any trader in U.S. debt securities would insist it cannot possibly mean: that the issuer may refuse to redeem the instrument if presented by any but the original obligee. See Hitner v. Lederer, 14 F.2D 991, 993 (E.D.Pa. 1926) (provision that bonds “shall not bear the circulation privilege” means that such bonds “are not a medium of exchange recognized by law”). What else could it mean?
Who might be the original obligee of an instrument issued in bearer form is an interesting question, but in recent time the vast majority of U.S. debt instruments have been issued in registered form. What about the Treasury practice of “registering” assignments of instruments? In the first place, administrative practices of the Treasury cannot alter the law, and 31 U.S.C. § 3108 is law. Secondly, the fact that the issuer may refuse to redeem upon presentment by someone other than the original obligee doesn’t mean that it must so refuse. And however consistently it does not, in practice, refuse, in principle its right to refuse remains unaffected.
How the nowadays vast and ever-churning market in Treasury debt securities came to operate in blithe disregard of this law is no doubt an interesting piece of history. One surmises that at a certain point, after the Treasury had disregarded § 3108 for a period of time, “the market” assured itself that the Government could not possibly risk crashing the financial system, and thus the economy, by all at once invoking it.
But now Messrs. Boehner and McConnell are promising to crash the financial system, and after that the question will be, “What can the U.S Treasury do to pick up the pieces?” In this light, the sudden discovery that by virtue of § 3108 very few holders of U.S. debt are in a position to make legal demand for payment might acquire new and previously unsuspected utility. The Treasury could announce a drastic restructuring (exempting such debt as is shown to be held by the original obligee) without triggering a “debt incident.” The rating agencies would no doubt come forward explaining that of course they had only meant their AAA rating to apply to U.S. debt instruments that had not been circulated in disregard of the law.
Treasury could then without qualm cover the costs of keeping the power on at the National Archives (thus saving the Declaration of Independence from crumbling into dust overnight), maintaining such vital services such as those provided by Blackwater USA and the like – oh, and even continuing to issue the Social Security checks.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
What Color Is the Yellow Peril?
Politco.com article on GOP candidate for special election to US House
In light of this report, who can deny that the Republican Party (in Nevada, at least) has become the vessel and willing tool of dangerous reactionary demagoguery? And on what basis can one rate the Republican Party of any other state superior to that of Nevada?
The only difference between reactionary and revolutionary demagogues is that the former simply pander to the ignorant prejudices of the masses as they find them, while the latter attempt to manipulate and rearrange them. In the long run both are equally dangerous to any system of ordered liberty.
With “conservatives” like this, who needs Bolsheviks? (Indeed, did Lenin cause default on the Czar’s debt with any less insouciant contempt than Amodei threatens default on “Obama’s”? But Lenin was not a fool, and unlike Amodei and the Nevada GOP, he really had nothing to fear from the bondholders … )
In light of this report, who can deny that the Republican Party (in Nevada, at least) has become the vessel and willing tool of dangerous reactionary demagoguery? And on what basis can one rate the Republican Party of any other state superior to that of Nevada?
The only difference between reactionary and revolutionary demagogues is that the former simply pander to the ignorant prejudices of the masses as they find them, while the latter attempt to manipulate and rearrange them. In the long run both are equally dangerous to any system of ordered liberty.
With “conservatives” like this, who needs Bolsheviks? (Indeed, did Lenin cause default on the Czar’s debt with any less insouciant contempt than Amodei threatens default on “Obama’s”? But Lenin was not a fool, and unlike Amodei and the Nevada GOP, he really had nothing to fear from the bondholders … )
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Debt Ceiling: Paying Attention to the Politics
John Zogby's 6/15 column for Forbes magazine noted that his organization's most recent poll had found 52% opposed to a debt-ceiling increase and 41% in favor. He went on to observe:
The set of likely Republican primary voters, in Congressional districts represented by a Republican, and/or in states with one or more Republican Senator, is a very special subset of the general population. But the perceived attitudes of this subset will be crucial in determining whether the necessary majorities for affirmative Congressional action to increase the existing cap on full-faith-and-credit borrowing can be mustered.
I suspect the package Tea Party voters would demand in order to approve the debt-ceiling hike is much bigger than the package Congressional leaders, of either and/or both parties, could deliver.
(How many bond traders have as yet even considered these Washington dynamics, much less given them the detailed scrutiny they demand? All indications are that Wall Street continues to assume, blithely, that the necessary ceiling increase, with or without some fiscal austerity bonus, wil be forthcoming in good time.)
Avoiding default, therefore, depends on (a.) selling the Tea Party masses on the need for a debt-ceiling increase, or (b.) persuading Congressional Republicans to do the statesmanlike and responsible, but possibly politically suicidal, thing and vote for a bill that does not include abolition of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve.
Contempt for all experts, even a profound suspicion of the very notion of expertise, however, is one of the hallmarks of this "conservative" movement. Who will explain the dangers to one of their seething town-hall meetings with any hope of being listened to? Even if such a brave person emerged, he would face the constant rejoinder that failure to rein in the deficits must someday produce the increased borrowing costs and downward fiscal spiral that ceiling-hike advocates warn against. While this observation may be valid, there is a big difference between "someday" and two months from today.
But the Tea Party believes that even if there should be some consternation in the bond market come August, it will be able to set things right. Warnings of the risk of more dire consequences will have little effect, because it is easy for this cohort to dismiss the "speculative" predictions of "so-called experts." Besides, they can find experts of their own to tell them what they want to hear. It also doesn't help that the warnings sound very much like those sounded by Wall Street and the Bush Adminisration in the course of their first, unsuccessful effort to obain the TARP legislation.
On that occasion, it took a jolt from the stock market to prod Congress into action. On this issue, continued inaction will most certainly result in a jolt. The concern I have been expressing is that the shock, when at last it comes, could well be huge, wholly uncontrollable in its immediate sequellae, and epochally catastrophic in its ultimate consequences.
There remains the hope that Boehner, McConnell and today's crop of GOP groundlings will brave political ruin to do the responsible and statesmanlike thing.
'Nuff said.
It does not help that this gang has played "Chicken" with the Democrats before and won, coming out with jalopy unscathed and glorious. When you talk to them of the urgency and peril of the situation, they only calculate the greater certainty of their foes' capitulation, and begin devising another escalation of their own demands.
45% of all voters would be more likely to support the [debt-ceiling] increase if major budget cuts are part of the deal. That includes slightly more than one-half of the voters who oppose raising the debt ceiling. So if Washington could satisfy them with cuts, we could have voter consensus on a deal.But have the pollsters separated out the data by "Red" and "Blue" states, or better yet, by Congressional district? What does a Republican up for re-election in 2012 have to deliver along with the debt-ceiling hike in order for primary voters in his state or district to forgive a "Yea" vote? That is what each such Congressional Republican is and will be asking himself. Sarah Palin's comment with regard to increasing the debt ceiling was simply, "Hell, no!" and anecdotal evidence (a perusal of comments left on news websites) suggests that the profane pixy from Wasilla did not overstate the "Tea Party" position.
The set of likely Republican primary voters, in Congressional districts represented by a Republican, and/or in states with one or more Republican Senator, is a very special subset of the general population. But the perceived attitudes of this subset will be crucial in determining whether the necessary majorities for affirmative Congressional action to increase the existing cap on full-faith-and-credit borrowing can be mustered.
I suspect the package Tea Party voters would demand in order to approve the debt-ceiling hike is much bigger than the package Congressional leaders, of either and/or both parties, could deliver.
(How many bond traders have as yet even considered these Washington dynamics, much less given them the detailed scrutiny they demand? All indications are that Wall Street continues to assume, blithely, that the necessary ceiling increase, with or without some fiscal austerity bonus, wil be forthcoming in good time.)
Avoiding default, therefore, depends on (a.) selling the Tea Party masses on the need for a debt-ceiling increase, or (b.) persuading Congressional Republicans to do the statesmanlike and responsible, but possibly politically suicidal, thing and vote for a bill that does not include abolition of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve.
Contempt for all experts, even a profound suspicion of the very notion of expertise, however, is one of the hallmarks of this "conservative" movement. Who will explain the dangers to one of their seething town-hall meetings with any hope of being listened to? Even if such a brave person emerged, he would face the constant rejoinder that failure to rein in the deficits must someday produce the increased borrowing costs and downward fiscal spiral that ceiling-hike advocates warn against. While this observation may be valid, there is a big difference between "someday" and two months from today.
But the Tea Party believes that even if there should be some consternation in the bond market come August, it will be able to set things right. Warnings of the risk of more dire consequences will have little effect, because it is easy for this cohort to dismiss the "speculative" predictions of "so-called experts." Besides, they can find experts of their own to tell them what they want to hear. It also doesn't help that the warnings sound very much like those sounded by Wall Street and the Bush Adminisration in the course of their first, unsuccessful effort to obain the TARP legislation.
On that occasion, it took a jolt from the stock market to prod Congress into action. On this issue, continued inaction will most certainly result in a jolt. The concern I have been expressing is that the shock, when at last it comes, could well be huge, wholly uncontrollable in its immediate sequellae, and epochally catastrophic in its ultimate consequences.
There remains the hope that Boehner, McConnell and today's crop of GOP groundlings will brave political ruin to do the responsible and statesmanlike thing.
'Nuff said.
It does not help that this gang has played "Chicken" with the Democrats before and won, coming out with jalopy unscathed and glorious. When you talk to them of the urgency and peril of the situation, they only calculate the greater certainty of their foes' capitulation, and begin devising another escalation of their own demands.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Riding the Dragon?
Wednesday Li Daokui, an adviser to the People's Bank of China, told reporters in Beijing that he hopes Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives will "stop playing with fire. ... I really worry about the risks of a U.S. debt default, which I think may lead to a decline in the dollar's value."
USA Today article
Ya think?
Even getting to the point where holders of US debt perceive a significant risk of default, however "brief" or "technical" -- which they don't, yet, and I believe they don't only because they fail to grasp the seriousness of the situation in Washington -- could very well lead to large-scale selling of such debt. But exchanging Treasury debt for dollars makes no sense, because dollars are merely another form of US government debt. The worried bondholders would, directly or indirectly, trade Treasury obligations for something else: Aussie dollars, cruzeros, copper futures, gold bullion, etc. The net effect is large-scale selling of US dollars. That's why Li is right to anticipate a decline in the dollar's value.
The question is, how far and how fast would the dollar fall? And the further question: at this (post-Lehman, post-TARP, post-QE1 & 2) juncture, how far and fast can the dollar fall without collapsing altogether?
The perception that the dollar's value is declining rapidly would accelerate the movement out of Treasuries and all other dollar-denominated debt. Thus the dollar's value declines even faster. At a certain point, a goodly number of people around the world begin to think it very likely that by tomorrow afternoon the number of yuan/euros/ounces of gold/barrels of oil/widgets FOB Detroit/economic good X that you can get for a dollar will be appreciably smaller than the number you can get right now. Then the dollar-dumping begins in earnest.
At this point, the fact that Emperor Dollar really is stark naked and there is nobody who can even toss a blanket or a towel around him will become inescapably clear to those who are paying attention. In light of recent history, the Fed and the Treasury probably could not even respond effectively to another Lehman Brothers. A run on the dollar sparked by anticipation of a Treasury default would be Lehman Brothers x 100 (at least). Measures that in days of yore might have shored the dollar up will only aggravate the panic. And the realization that there really is no bottom under a plunging dollar will engender generalized and absolute panic.
Those with any understanding of the situation will recognize that the world as we have known it is ending. The sudden death of the world's only reserve currency, the one universal measure and store of value and the vital medium of global commerce, would bring world (and even US domestic) trade to a screeching halt and spell financial, and therfore economic, Armaggedon.
Playing with fire, indeed. Only, one would think that the rich literary history of China might provide an even stronger, and thus more apt, metaphor.
USA Today article
Ya think?
Even getting to the point where holders of US debt perceive a significant risk of default, however "brief" or "technical" -- which they don't, yet, and I believe they don't only because they fail to grasp the seriousness of the situation in Washington -- could very well lead to large-scale selling of such debt. But exchanging Treasury debt for dollars makes no sense, because dollars are merely another form of US government debt. The worried bondholders would, directly or indirectly, trade Treasury obligations for something else: Aussie dollars, cruzeros, copper futures, gold bullion, etc. The net effect is large-scale selling of US dollars. That's why Li is right to anticipate a decline in the dollar's value.
The question is, how far and how fast would the dollar fall? And the further question: at this (post-Lehman, post-TARP, post-QE1 & 2) juncture, how far and fast can the dollar fall without collapsing altogether?
The perception that the dollar's value is declining rapidly would accelerate the movement out of Treasuries and all other dollar-denominated debt. Thus the dollar's value declines even faster. At a certain point, a goodly number of people around the world begin to think it very likely that by tomorrow afternoon the number of yuan/euros/ounces of gold/barrels of oil/widgets FOB Detroit/economic good X that you can get for a dollar will be appreciably smaller than the number you can get right now. Then the dollar-dumping begins in earnest.
At this point, the fact that Emperor Dollar really is stark naked and there is nobody who can even toss a blanket or a towel around him will become inescapably clear to those who are paying attention. In light of recent history, the Fed and the Treasury probably could not even respond effectively to another Lehman Brothers. A run on the dollar sparked by anticipation of a Treasury default would be Lehman Brothers x 100 (at least). Measures that in days of yore might have shored the dollar up will only aggravate the panic. And the realization that there really is no bottom under a plunging dollar will engender generalized and absolute panic.
Those with any understanding of the situation will recognize that the world as we have known it is ending. The sudden death of the world's only reserve currency, the one universal measure and store of value and the vital medium of global commerce, would bring world (and even US domestic) trade to a screeching halt and spell financial, and therfore economic, Armaggedon.
Playing with fire, indeed. Only, one would think that the rich literary history of China might provide an even stronger, and thus more apt, metaphor.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Palin Recruits Revere for Trivialization of II Amendment
In late spring of 2012, Palin traveled with her family on what she described as an "American History" bus tour. On the New England leg of the tour she gave comments to a Boston TV crew regarding their visit to Paul Revere's house, saying that it was
"he [Revere] who warned uhh the the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms uhh by ringing those bells and uhh making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that uhh we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dRqaDrhgb8&feature=related
These remarks attracted considerable attention from the mainstream media.
A few have defended the accuracy of these comments by pointing to the fact that Revere, while briefly held under arrest by the British, gave an exaggerated account of Revolutionary forces in and movements toward the Lexington-Concord vicinity. Revere is generally believed to have been intentionally dispensing misinformation, but his precise motive for this has been a subject of historical speculation. The contention that he was trying to discourage the British from advancing their patrols rapidly into that vicinity in order to prevent the arrest of Revolutionary leaders Hancock and Adams is generally associated with the (revisionist) view that the Revolutionaries in Revere's circle felt the arms stored in or near the Concord Armory were safe from seizure by the British because they had been hidden, and the whole "British are coming" project was prompted by fear of political arrests rather than the desire to maintain Revolutionary control of the arms that had been stored at the Armory for use of the local militia. The more generally accepted view is that Revere hoped to induce the British to move toward Concord more slowly than they otherwise might have, in order to give the Revolutionary militia more time to assemble and organize for the defense of the Armory.
Palin's remarks almost certainly were not based on the little known details of the British interrogation and release of Revere. In fact, they were closely associated with the conventional view that the British were moving to seize the arms at Concord and the Revolutionaries were assembling to repulse the British and keep the arms under their own control. Whether or not Palin understood exactly whom Revere intended to warn of what and/or exactly what auditory signals, when and where, were employed by Revere (and her remarks clearly suggest she understood neither) she was perhaps correct in a deeper sense. The Founding Fathers would certainly have understood a profound connection between the famous history of the "Shot Heard 'Round the World," i.e., the British movement toward and Revolutionary defense of Lexington and Concord (that is to say, the version of it that had been generally received, as opposed to the protection-of- Hancock-and-Adams version that was either uncovered or invented by certain later historians) and the Second Amendment. Palin was trying to highlight that connection.
Palin's remarks about Paul Revere's ride provoked considerable discussion. What they did not initiate was a serious conversation about the political intent and significance of the Second Amendment, the era of musketry and rifle fire and associated rise of citizen armies, introduced and typified by the American Revolution and the Battle of Valmy, or the Amendment's continuing meaning in a world where the weapons of conclusive significance in the American armory are thermonuclear bombs and tactical air support, and the comparative irrelevance of musketry and rifle fire is being demonstrated day by day in Libya.
"he [Revere] who warned uhh the the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms uhh by ringing those bells and uhh making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that uhh we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dRqaDrhgb8&feature=related
These remarks attracted considerable attention from the mainstream media.
A few have defended the accuracy of these comments by pointing to the fact that Revere, while briefly held under arrest by the British, gave an exaggerated account of Revolutionary forces in and movements toward the Lexington-Concord vicinity. Revere is generally believed to have been intentionally dispensing misinformation, but his precise motive for this has been a subject of historical speculation. The contention that he was trying to discourage the British from advancing their patrols rapidly into that vicinity in order to prevent the arrest of Revolutionary leaders Hancock and Adams is generally associated with the (revisionist) view that the Revolutionaries in Revere's circle felt the arms stored in or near the Concord Armory were safe from seizure by the British because they had been hidden, and the whole "British are coming" project was prompted by fear of political arrests rather than the desire to maintain Revolutionary control of the arms that had been stored at the Armory for use of the local militia. The more generally accepted view is that Revere hoped to induce the British to move toward Concord more slowly than they otherwise might have, in order to give the Revolutionary militia more time to assemble and organize for the defense of the Armory.
Palin's remarks almost certainly were not based on the little known details of the British interrogation and release of Revere. In fact, they were closely associated with the conventional view that the British were moving to seize the arms at Concord and the Revolutionaries were assembling to repulse the British and keep the arms under their own control. Whether or not Palin understood exactly whom Revere intended to warn of what and/or exactly what auditory signals, when and where, were employed by Revere (and her remarks clearly suggest she understood neither) she was perhaps correct in a deeper sense. The Founding Fathers would certainly have understood a profound connection between the famous history of the "Shot Heard 'Round the World," i.e., the British movement toward and Revolutionary defense of Lexington and Concord (that is to say, the version of it that had been generally received, as opposed to the protection-of- Hancock-and-Adams version that was either uncovered or invented by certain later historians) and the Second Amendment. Palin was trying to highlight that connection.
Palin's remarks about Paul Revere's ride provoked considerable discussion. What they did not initiate was a serious conversation about the political intent and significance of the Second Amendment, the era of musketry and rifle fire and associated rise of citizen armies, introduced and typified by the American Revolution and the Battle of Valmy, or the Amendment's continuing meaning in a world where the weapons of conclusive significance in the American armory are thermonuclear bombs and tactical air support, and the comparative irrelevance of musketry and rifle fire is being demonstrated day by day in Libya.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Awesome Video -- Part 2: The Rest
Another filmstrip to insult the intelligence of a normal 8-year-old. Let's go back through time, and see what it was composed of.
00:00-00:26 We have already discussed the title, in Part 1.
00:27-01:02 "Let's go back in time." And, through the magic of pointlesss and inartistic video, we do. (The reverse aging scene presumably stops at mid-childhood because that's when "we" are thought to have begun being victimized by "our" parents' religious propagandizing, but any really rational person would certainly object to the implicit obcurantism of the "star-gate" effects,* which precede -- one assumes,through a momentary suspension of chronological reversal -- the newborn's cry -- itself inserted, one assumes, through the director's momentary forgetfulness concerning our "backward" destination. Or could early childhood, infancy and peri- and prenatal stages have been skipped deliberately?)
01:03 The SRR lecture begins.
-01:22 "Do you remember when you were a child, when your parents introduced you a certain belief system?"
Is it really quite fair of the SRR to accompany this question with a display of Macaulay Culkin's "horrified" expression from "Home Alone"?
Anyway, the SRR here poses a yes-or-no question to which a particular subject might respond "No" for a variety of reasons. The best would be that "belief systems" and "cultures" are co-creators one of another, and introduction to the prevailing culture begins with the first human touch (or perhaps before). For the same reason, a "No" based on one's parents' avoidance of any explicit religious instruction would be too superficial an answer.
(Those who are trying to guess our lecturer's first language will have picked up on the "introduced you." Most likely, it's a language that has a dative case still in regular use.)
-02:09 SRR makes a rather disorganized and repetitious declaration of its "tabula rasa" theory of infant- and child-psychology, only with a freshly-zeroed memory chip substituting for the classical blank slate.
We learn that "How children are programmed, what is filtered and what is not, depends on what their parents think is best for them. In the initial stage, the child's morals, ethics, values and everything else are mostly of their parents." Hmmm. What about the little boy who knew the proper words very well but always said "My kingdom come, my will be done" when the Lord's Prayer was recited? If his parents at some subliminal level encouraged him to think it, they certainly didn't encourage (in fact, if they'd been listening closely enough to notice, would sternly have forbidden) his saying it. Whence came that "filtering"?
Not that the tabula rasa is really an important SRR tenet. SRR's real purpose in painting a touching picture of the "innocence" of the child=freshly zeroed memory chip is to heighten the shock effect of the video's centerpiece: the Gothic tale of so-wicked-they-ought-to-be-step- parents Drew and Amy.
02:19-06:06 Not only avowed racists but advocates of racial hatred and racial violence, these Neo-Nazis are counted on to evoke in today's audience as much horror as a pair of godless Communists would have in the 50s or 60s. And they spread their poisonous filth to their innocent children!
OK, so it's all a production of Tyra Banks, the female Jerry Springer. OK, so Drew is obviously having great fun shocking the audience, and Tyra obviously thinks she's making great TV. OK, so we hear from the child-victims for a total of 28 seconds, and we're not surprised to hear them mimic their parents' shrilly expressed attitudes. And OK, so by far the most telling remark, where parent-to-child transmission issues are concerned, comes from Tyra when she warns Drew "Children rebel. They go against their parents" -- a warning we don't think Drew should need, 'cause he really doesn't sound like a second-generation Nazi. Dramatic TV is good TV, and good TV is good video.
The Norwegian flags are a puzzling touch, I must say, but the segment's point is perfectly obvious: when (to Macaulay Culkin's horror) your parents introduced you a certain belief system, they were doing to you what wicked Drew and Amy are doing to innnocent Arik, Bronlin and yes, even to baby Valkyrie!
06:07-07:04 An odd little video pastiche I had labeled "monkey see, monkey do" before I reached the final slogan "Children see. Children do." Of course, this is another obvious old saw (of the type our New Militant Atheists seem to delight in trotting out as if they were new inventions), but it is odd that the illustrations chosen are all negative. In any event, all are sentimental and overblown and several are downright unconvincing. For instance, I don't believe that most little girls can throw up just because momma is doing so. And I am quite certain that when a little boy sees father beating mother, any resulting violent impulse on the boy's part is much more likely to be directed against father than against mother. Bafflingly, the little show ends with a shot depicting a happy family contentedly picnicking in a parking garage.
7:05-7:15 We are warned against "those who have taken authority as the truth," on the authority of one Gerald Massey, an Edwardian crank who fancied himself an Egyptologist and published some claptrap about Egyptian religion that no recognized professional Egyptologist has ever confirmed or accepted. Mmmm ... indeed, beware of THOSE!
07:16 The lecture proper resumes. "Today we as adults have many beliefs. They are mostly based on what we think is right based on our parents or someone else." (Again, the friendly "we" that really means "you benighted ones.") Only in hushed tones of awe may we observe that our noble lecturer has numbered the "beliefs" that "we as adults have today," and has ascertained that a majority of them "are based on what we think is right based on our parents or someone else." This exhaustive enumeration, of course, included the belief of Ms. Indra Chappati of North Surapat that her husband is having an affair, the belief of Andre Michaud of Bordeaux that the linings of his brakes are shot, and my own belief that Abraham Lincoln went skinny-dipping with the principal members of his Cabinet. Exactly how much "our parents or someone else" might have had to do with our holding these beliefs is not completely clear to Ms. Chappati, Messr. Michaud or myself, but the SRR knows!
"Some of us grew out of this unquestioned trust in authority. Many more have not." (With the second sentence, a young Muslim male looms into view, and remains during the pregnant pause that follows.) Again, the confident enumerations. And how did the harboring of beliefs either similar to, or in some part "based on [the beliefs of?] our parents or others" suddenly become equivalent to "unquestioned trust in authority"? Questioning a proposition initially entertained on authority is not necessarily equivalent to rejecting the proposition. So how does SRR know that there is anyone who may rightly be charged with entirely "unquestioned trust in authority," much less that this group includes a majority of mankind? Some of us grew out of sweeping generalizations and/or the facile assumption of our own superiority. Others have not.
Next we learn that "humane education, ethical science projects and healthy reasoning exercises" (whatever any of these may be) are never promoted by those who have been influenced by "faith-based religious beliefs." Ahh! Wicked Episcopalian that I am, I promote only inhumane education, unethical science projects and unheatlhy exercises, reasoning and otherwise. But curses! Will all my schemes to advance human misery yet be foiled by this heroic SRR?
"Imagine your parents had a different belief system than what they do now." Well. considering that they're dead, that isn't hard to do.
"Assuming you have not made or convinced to convert to another religious belief system already, what religion or belief system do you think you would defended the death today?"
Whew! I'm sorry, but this fellow really needs to go back to English-as-a-Second-Language school. Nevertheless, this incoherent question has a coherent and obvious answer: Solomon Islands Cargo Cult, of course. (OK, when I signed on I didn't realize that "defended the death" would be required, but what the heck … )
"It's quite obvious and in most cases the belief system of a parent came from their parents who got their beliefs from their parents who [repetitions omitted] going backwards in time to the originator who introduced the belief system in the first place based on several extraordinary claims written in a book or a scripture compiled by those who claim it to be the truth and nothing but the truth, claim that it is all perfect, all-powerful, all holy, without any errors or contradictions whatsoever."
Yes, folks, it's all one sentence. And I'm just the guy to take it on, too. The first thing after the rhetorical flourish ("quite obvious") is number confusion: the system of a parent came from their parents. "Obviously," in other words, "in most cases" the ancestors of people living today had entirely homozygous belief systems. That's an assertion that required a K-2 of genealogy, plus a Himalaya or two of extra-genealogical (and even extra-historical) belief-winkling. But the SRR has already completed this vast work! Astoundingly, these creedally pure pedigrees ascend all the way to the originator of the creed in question. Now, if we consider what was formerly believed about, say, the Conversion of the Northern Barbarians, we might see a problem with this. If the inhabitants of England were pagans prior to the advent of Augustine of Canterbury, and if Augustine and his companions were monks and had no children, then on our lecturer's theory the existence of English Christians would seem hard to explain. Indeed, given only the datum that prior to the end of the sixth century all the English were pagans, it would seem to be impossible for any English Christian to claim his creed as an ancestral inheritance descending from, or from the time of, "the originator," whether that person is taken to be Jesus of Nazareth, one or another of his apostles, or all of the apostles collectively. Well, so much for what's "obvious" about "most cases" of belief.
"The originator who introduced the belief system in the first place based on several extraordinary claims written in a book or a scripture ..." But in the cases of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism, there was no "book or scripture" 'till after the originator was gone from the earth, so the originator could hardly have done anything "based on" any kind of claim written therein.
"A scripture compiled by those who claim it to be the truth and nothing but the truth, claim that it is all perfect, all-powerful, all holy, without any errors or contradictions whatsoever." Well, if we're talking about the Christian Bible (and something tells me our lecturer is) the compilers would undoubtedly have claimed it to be the truth. All the rest of our lecturer's formulation here is strictly the product of certain British and American factions of the 19th and 20th centuries and so can hardly be attributed to the 4th century "compilers." As for the "all-powerful," it isn't claimed by anyone so far as I know, and scarcely even makes sense.
"So how do we know the originator, the god, the holy prophet, the holy book, the creation story, talking animals, talking babies, wizard, witches, demons, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, people coming back from the dead, people claim to be god, and all sorts of magical stories claimed by a belief system are in fact true?"
So do you think it's possible to pose a question in such fashion as to give away the fact that you will tolerate only one answer? (The rhetorical question may be a useful device, but (a.) you cannot use it to carry your main point, and (b.) you really need to keep the question brief and well-focused.)
"If it is true, how do we know the claimed facts surrounding it are real?"
Huh?
"Is something true because [long-winded catalogue that can be simplified to: its truth is affirmed by authority]?"
Elementary answer to elementary question: Not necessarily, though under certain circumstances what is logically classified as the testimony of authority may be the best or the only possible evidence regarding the truth or non-truth of a particular proposition, and in others the testimony of authority may be accepted as some evidence regarding the truth or non-truth of a proposition.
"And is it because all of these people, extremely nice and intelligent people, so they would never lie to me or to themselves, or become an unassuming wictim of a deluded system?"
Is what because all of which people, etc.? The undeniable tone of irony and personal disappointment, even resentment, with which our lecturer pronounces the words "they would never lie to me" may account for the incoherence here. Clearly, he feels some extremely nice and intelligent person or other did lie to him. One senses his complaint is very sincere, and one feels only sympathy.
Nevertheless, "an unassuming wictim of a deluded system" is too inviting a target of ridicule to be resisted. I think I'll start signing myself "An Unassuming Wictim (of a Deluded System)."
Having posed a series of silly questions none of which anybody would answer "Yes," our Wictimizer instructs:
"If your answer to any of these questions is a yes, then you should understand why people believe what they believe, why you believe what you believe, and why people don't believe your beliefs and why you don't believe their beliefs."
But he politely inquires, "Make sense?" To which we politely answer, "Not a bit."
Lest the Wictim-man feel we have been curt with him, we note first that we include ourselfes in the category "people," so that when he has explained why people believe what they believe, it will not be necessary to tell us why we believe what we believe -- thanking him very much. Next, suspecting that the set of propositions we do not believe may be practically, if not technically, infinite, we politely beg to be excused from hearing him explain why we don't believe each and every one of them. (Trusting him to do the transfinite arithmetic required if we tried to schedule explanations of why everyone else doesn't believe everything they don't believe.) Finally, summoning our politest smile and softest tone, we gently suggest that, when we seek to understand why people believe what they believe we might prefer to ask someone else. We do not vex him by asking why he believes he knows why people believe what they believe, still less by hinting at our belief that he knows nothing of the kind.
And so, at last reaching minute 10:15, we complete our analysis of this cardboard confection of a propaganda piece, wondering how it could have become necessary to embark upon such a colossal waste of time and energy. Please excuse me if I skip Videos 2, 3 and 4.
P.S.: My guess is he's an Austrian.
------
* The reference is to the famous, and at the time ground-breaking, effects sequence in Kubrick's 1968 film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, not the more recent science fiction piece.
00:00-00:26 We have already discussed the title, in Part 1.
00:27-01:02 "Let's go back in time." And, through the magic of pointlesss and inartistic video, we do. (The reverse aging scene presumably stops at mid-childhood because that's when "we" are thought to have begun being victimized by "our" parents' religious propagandizing, but any really rational person would certainly object to the implicit obcurantism of the "star-gate" effects,* which precede -- one assumes,through a momentary suspension of chronological reversal -- the newborn's cry -- itself inserted, one assumes, through the director's momentary forgetfulness concerning our "backward" destination. Or could early childhood, infancy and peri- and prenatal stages have been skipped deliberately?)
01:03 The SRR lecture begins.
-01:22 "Do you remember when you were a child, when your parents introduced you a certain belief system?"
Is it really quite fair of the SRR to accompany this question with a display of Macaulay Culkin's "horrified" expression from "Home Alone"?
Anyway, the SRR here poses a yes-or-no question to which a particular subject might respond "No" for a variety of reasons. The best would be that "belief systems" and "cultures" are co-creators one of another, and introduction to the prevailing culture begins with the first human touch (or perhaps before). For the same reason, a "No" based on one's parents' avoidance of any explicit religious instruction would be too superficial an answer.
(Those who are trying to guess our lecturer's first language will have picked up on the "introduced you." Most likely, it's a language that has a dative case still in regular use.)
-02:09 SRR makes a rather disorganized and repetitious declaration of its "tabula rasa" theory of infant- and child-psychology, only with a freshly-zeroed memory chip substituting for the classical blank slate.
We learn that "How children are programmed, what is filtered and what is not, depends on what their parents think is best for them. In the initial stage, the child's morals, ethics, values and everything else are mostly of their parents." Hmmm. What about the little boy who knew the proper words very well but always said "My kingdom come, my will be done" when the Lord's Prayer was recited? If his parents at some subliminal level encouraged him to think it, they certainly didn't encourage (in fact, if they'd been listening closely enough to notice, would sternly have forbidden) his saying it. Whence came that "filtering"?
Not that the tabula rasa is really an important SRR tenet. SRR's real purpose in painting a touching picture of the "innocence" of the child=freshly zeroed memory chip is to heighten the shock effect of the video's centerpiece: the Gothic tale of so-wicked-they-ought-to-be-step- parents Drew and Amy.
02:19-06:06 Not only avowed racists but advocates of racial hatred and racial violence, these Neo-Nazis are counted on to evoke in today's audience as much horror as a pair of godless Communists would have in the 50s or 60s. And they spread their poisonous filth to their innocent children!
OK, so it's all a production of Tyra Banks, the female Jerry Springer. OK, so Drew is obviously having great fun shocking the audience, and Tyra obviously thinks she's making great TV. OK, so we hear from the child-victims for a total of 28 seconds, and we're not surprised to hear them mimic their parents' shrilly expressed attitudes. And OK, so by far the most telling remark, where parent-to-child transmission issues are concerned, comes from Tyra when she warns Drew "Children rebel. They go against their parents" -- a warning we don't think Drew should need, 'cause he really doesn't sound like a second-generation Nazi. Dramatic TV is good TV, and good TV is good video.
The Norwegian flags are a puzzling touch, I must say, but the segment's point is perfectly obvious: when (to Macaulay Culkin's horror) your parents introduced you a certain belief system, they were doing to you what wicked Drew and Amy are doing to innnocent Arik, Bronlin and yes, even to baby Valkyrie!
06:07-07:04 An odd little video pastiche I had labeled "monkey see, monkey do" before I reached the final slogan "Children see. Children do." Of course, this is another obvious old saw (of the type our New Militant Atheists seem to delight in trotting out as if they were new inventions), but it is odd that the illustrations chosen are all negative. In any event, all are sentimental and overblown and several are downright unconvincing. For instance, I don't believe that most little girls can throw up just because momma is doing so. And I am quite certain that when a little boy sees father beating mother, any resulting violent impulse on the boy's part is much more likely to be directed against father than against mother. Bafflingly, the little show ends with a shot depicting a happy family contentedly picnicking in a parking garage.
7:05-7:15 We are warned against "those who have taken authority as the truth," on the authority of one Gerald Massey, an Edwardian crank who fancied himself an Egyptologist and published some claptrap about Egyptian religion that no recognized professional Egyptologist has ever confirmed or accepted. Mmmm ... indeed, beware of THOSE!
07:16 The lecture proper resumes. "Today we as adults have many beliefs. They are mostly based on what we think is right based on our parents or someone else." (Again, the friendly "we" that really means "you benighted ones.") Only in hushed tones of awe may we observe that our noble lecturer has numbered the "beliefs" that "we as adults have today," and has ascertained that a majority of them "are based on what we think is right based on our parents or someone else." This exhaustive enumeration, of course, included the belief of Ms. Indra Chappati of North Surapat that her husband is having an affair, the belief of Andre Michaud of Bordeaux that the linings of his brakes are shot, and my own belief that Abraham Lincoln went skinny-dipping with the principal members of his Cabinet. Exactly how much "our parents or someone else" might have had to do with our holding these beliefs is not completely clear to Ms. Chappati, Messr. Michaud or myself, but the SRR knows!
"Some of us grew out of this unquestioned trust in authority. Many more have not." (With the second sentence, a young Muslim male looms into view, and remains during the pregnant pause that follows.) Again, the confident enumerations. And how did the harboring of beliefs either similar to, or in some part "based on [the beliefs of?] our parents or others" suddenly become equivalent to "unquestioned trust in authority"? Questioning a proposition initially entertained on authority is not necessarily equivalent to rejecting the proposition. So how does SRR know that there is anyone who may rightly be charged with entirely "unquestioned trust in authority," much less that this group includes a majority of mankind? Some of us grew out of sweeping generalizations and/or the facile assumption of our own superiority. Others have not.
Next we learn that "humane education, ethical science projects and healthy reasoning exercises" (whatever any of these may be) are never promoted by those who have been influenced by "faith-based religious beliefs." Ahh! Wicked Episcopalian that I am, I promote only inhumane education, unethical science projects and unheatlhy exercises, reasoning and otherwise. But curses! Will all my schemes to advance human misery yet be foiled by this heroic SRR?
"Imagine your parents had a different belief system than what they do now." Well. considering that they're dead, that isn't hard to do.
"Assuming you have not made or convinced to convert to another religious belief system already, what religion or belief system do you think you would defended the death today?"
Whew! I'm sorry, but this fellow really needs to go back to English-as-a-Second-Language school. Nevertheless, this incoherent question has a coherent and obvious answer: Solomon Islands Cargo Cult, of course. (OK, when I signed on I didn't realize that "defended the death" would be required, but what the heck … )
"It's quite obvious and in most cases the belief system of a parent came from their parents who got their beliefs from their parents who [repetitions omitted] going backwards in time to the originator who introduced the belief system in the first place based on several extraordinary claims written in a book or a scripture compiled by those who claim it to be the truth and nothing but the truth, claim that it is all perfect, all-powerful, all holy, without any errors or contradictions whatsoever."
Yes, folks, it's all one sentence. And I'm just the guy to take it on, too. The first thing after the rhetorical flourish ("quite obvious") is number confusion: the system of a parent came from their parents. "Obviously," in other words, "in most cases" the ancestors of people living today had entirely homozygous belief systems. That's an assertion that required a K-2 of genealogy, plus a Himalaya or two of extra-genealogical (and even extra-historical) belief-winkling. But the SRR has already completed this vast work! Astoundingly, these creedally pure pedigrees ascend all the way to the originator of the creed in question. Now, if we consider what was formerly believed about, say, the Conversion of the Northern Barbarians, we might see a problem with this. If the inhabitants of England were pagans prior to the advent of Augustine of Canterbury, and if Augustine and his companions were monks and had no children, then on our lecturer's theory the existence of English Christians would seem hard to explain. Indeed, given only the datum that prior to the end of the sixth century all the English were pagans, it would seem to be impossible for any English Christian to claim his creed as an ancestral inheritance descending from, or from the time of, "the originator," whether that person is taken to be Jesus of Nazareth, one or another of his apostles, or all of the apostles collectively. Well, so much for what's "obvious" about "most cases" of belief.
"The originator who introduced the belief system in the first place based on several extraordinary claims written in a book or a scripture ..." But in the cases of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism, there was no "book or scripture" 'till after the originator was gone from the earth, so the originator could hardly have done anything "based on" any kind of claim written therein.
"A scripture compiled by those who claim it to be the truth and nothing but the truth, claim that it is all perfect, all-powerful, all holy, without any errors or contradictions whatsoever." Well, if we're talking about the Christian Bible (and something tells me our lecturer is) the compilers would undoubtedly have claimed it to be the truth. All the rest of our lecturer's formulation here is strictly the product of certain British and American factions of the 19th and 20th centuries and so can hardly be attributed to the 4th century "compilers." As for the "all-powerful," it isn't claimed by anyone so far as I know, and scarcely even makes sense.
"So how do we know the originator, the god, the holy prophet, the holy book, the creation story, talking animals, talking babies, wizard, witches, demons, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, people coming back from the dead, people claim to be god, and all sorts of magical stories claimed by a belief system are in fact true?"
So do you think it's possible to pose a question in such fashion as to give away the fact that you will tolerate only one answer? (The rhetorical question may be a useful device, but (a.) you cannot use it to carry your main point, and (b.) you really need to keep the question brief and well-focused.)
"If it is true, how do we know the claimed facts surrounding it are real?"
Huh?
"Is something true because [long-winded catalogue that can be simplified to: its truth is affirmed by authority]?"
Elementary answer to elementary question: Not necessarily, though under certain circumstances what is logically classified as the testimony of authority may be the best or the only possible evidence regarding the truth or non-truth of a particular proposition, and in others the testimony of authority may be accepted as some evidence regarding the truth or non-truth of a proposition.
"And is it because all of these people, extremely nice and intelligent people, so they would never lie to me or to themselves, or become an unassuming wictim of a deluded system?"
Is what because all of which people, etc.? The undeniable tone of irony and personal disappointment, even resentment, with which our lecturer pronounces the words "they would never lie to me" may account for the incoherence here. Clearly, he feels some extremely nice and intelligent person or other did lie to him. One senses his complaint is very sincere, and one feels only sympathy.
Nevertheless, "an unassuming wictim of a deluded system" is too inviting a target of ridicule to be resisted. I think I'll start signing myself "An Unassuming Wictim (of a Deluded System)."
Having posed a series of silly questions none of which anybody would answer "Yes," our Wictimizer instructs:
"If your answer to any of these questions is a yes, then you should understand why people believe what they believe, why you believe what you believe, and why people don't believe your beliefs and why you don't believe their beliefs."
But he politely inquires, "Make sense?" To which we politely answer, "Not a bit."
Lest the Wictim-man feel we have been curt with him, we note first that we include ourselfes in the category "people," so that when he has explained why people believe what they believe, it will not be necessary to tell us why we believe what we believe -- thanking him very much. Next, suspecting that the set of propositions we do not believe may be practically, if not technically, infinite, we politely beg to be excused from hearing him explain why we don't believe each and every one of them. (Trusting him to do the transfinite arithmetic required if we tried to schedule explanations of why everyone else doesn't believe everything they don't believe.) Finally, summoning our politest smile and softest tone, we gently suggest that, when we seek to understand why people believe what they believe we might prefer to ask someone else. We do not vex him by asking why he believes he knows why people believe what they believe, still less by hinting at our belief that he knows nothing of the kind.
And so, at last reaching minute 10:15, we complete our analysis of this cardboard confection of a propaganda piece, wondering how it could have become necessary to embark upon such a colossal waste of time and energy. Please excuse me if I skip Videos 2, 3 and 4.
P.S.: My guess is he's an Austrian.
------
* The reference is to the famous, and at the time ground-breaking, effects sequence in Kubrick's 1968 film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, not the more recent science fiction piece.
Awesome Video -- Part 1: The Title
Note: This post and the following one were written in response to a link to
http://www.youtube.com/user/ScienceReasnRational#p/a/u/0/9tl_PdsJAfo
that somebody (a Facebook “friend”?) directed to (newsfed to?) my seldom-visited Facebook page a few days ago.
"Why We Believe What We Believe." When someone you don't know -- and sometimes even if it's someone you know well -- starts throwing "we" around, it's often wise to ask, "Who's 'we'? Ya got worms?" One feels confident that what the SRR believes is not going to be on the table, and "Why You Believe What You Believe," or "Why Those Numbskulls Believe What They Believe" might be more accurate titles.
It's nice of the SRR to offer to tell me why I believe what I believe. A trifle presumptuous perhaps, but kindly meant, no doubt.
More portentious is the subtitle, suggesting we are to be offered insights into "The Psychology of Religion." Now, if by "psychology" the SRR means the modern academic discipline purporting to constitute one of the empirical sciences, as an empirical science it can support only a statistical definition of the norm (and thus, of the distinction between normality and abnormality). We might therefore claim greater interest for a study of the psychology of irreligion.
The piece itself, and the reactions to it, are interesting data. A low-production-value pastiche of borrowed and largley irrelevant snippets interspersing a s-l-0-w and barely coherent lecture, itself almost entirely an attack on straw men (no -- what's flimsier than straw?), what could possibly have caused otherwise intelligent people to gush over it?
Contemporary America harbors a large movement -- perhaps better described as a subculture -- of Fundamentalist Christianity. Like other religious fundamentalisms, it has its genesis in panicked reaction against modernity. Accordingly it turns defensively inward and is basically anti-intellectual. This is not the place for an extensive discussion of its foibles. My thesis, however, is that most of the enthusiastic recipients of the propaganda of the New Militant Atheists are, in one way or another, escapees from this Fundamentalism.
For these recovering victims of intellectual and/or psychological abuse, pieces like this one fall under the psychological classification of "reinforcement." The emotional value with which some invest an item such as this video derives from its psychic usefulness. Some want to punish their abusers by heaping ridicule on them, others value whatever helps drown out the siren call of the all-embracing “lifestyle” ideology they once found so comfortable. (And these two groups are by no means mutually exclusive.)
I have great sympathy for such people. Nevertheless I would encourage any of them to seek insight into the connection between his or her personal history and his or her fascination with the New Militant Atheism. If you'd remained in the “Forever Family,” you'd happily be working to inflict it on others – is an equal and opposite reaction, however natural, really an improvement?
http://www.youtube.com/user/ScienceReasnRational#p/a/u/0/9tl_PdsJAfo
that somebody (a Facebook “friend”?) directed to (newsfed to?) my seldom-visited Facebook page a few days ago.
"Why We Believe What We Believe." When someone you don't know -- and sometimes even if it's someone you know well -- starts throwing "we" around, it's often wise to ask, "Who's 'we'? Ya got worms?" One feels confident that what the SRR believes is not going to be on the table, and "Why You Believe What You Believe," or "Why Those Numbskulls Believe What They Believe" might be more accurate titles.
It's nice of the SRR to offer to tell me why I believe what I believe. A trifle presumptuous perhaps, but kindly meant, no doubt.
More portentious is the subtitle, suggesting we are to be offered insights into "The Psychology of Religion." Now, if by "psychology" the SRR means the modern academic discipline purporting to constitute one of the empirical sciences, as an empirical science it can support only a statistical definition of the norm (and thus, of the distinction between normality and abnormality). We might therefore claim greater interest for a study of the psychology of irreligion.
The piece itself, and the reactions to it, are interesting data. A low-production-value pastiche of borrowed and largley irrelevant snippets interspersing a s-l-0-w and barely coherent lecture, itself almost entirely an attack on straw men (no -- what's flimsier than straw?), what could possibly have caused otherwise intelligent people to gush over it?
Contemporary America harbors a large movement -- perhaps better described as a subculture -- of Fundamentalist Christianity. Like other religious fundamentalisms, it has its genesis in panicked reaction against modernity. Accordingly it turns defensively inward and is basically anti-intellectual. This is not the place for an extensive discussion of its foibles. My thesis, however, is that most of the enthusiastic recipients of the propaganda of the New Militant Atheists are, in one way or another, escapees from this Fundamentalism.
For these recovering victims of intellectual and/or psychological abuse, pieces like this one fall under the psychological classification of "reinforcement." The emotional value with which some invest an item such as this video derives from its psychic usefulness. Some want to punish their abusers by heaping ridicule on them, others value whatever helps drown out the siren call of the all-embracing “lifestyle” ideology they once found so comfortable. (And these two groups are by no means mutually exclusive.)
I have great sympathy for such people. Nevertheless I would encourage any of them to seek insight into the connection between his or her personal history and his or her fascination with the New Militant Atheism. If you'd remained in the “Forever Family,” you'd happily be working to inflict it on others – is an equal and opposite reaction, however natural, really an improvement?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
