What Is Before Us

 This past Saturday, I offered up something, But It Is Still There, that all but stated my intent. It was an initial attempt at summing up this summer, the summer of 2020. In the essay, I chose to point to what I was focused upon as opposed to explicitly asserting it.

I thought that such was more appropriate as I felt that for many what I was pointing at was in fact not there. Many, I believe are either unable to recognize it or have chosen to ignore what I was pointing at. Many I believe simply want to deny what I pointed to. And with that, I wanted to all but state its presence. I wanted in that essay to not only point to it, but point to its disregard. Highlight that it was largely not seen.  

What I was pointing to, however, needs to be named. It needs to be identified. To hint and suggest at it is not sufficient, regardless of the situation around it. 

What I point to are the peaceful protests that have gone on throughout this summer in the United States. Peaceful protests were what this summer was about. Protesting was for many the one thing they did with others. It was for many perhaps the one thing they had. 

We did not have the 4th of July fireworks. We did not have ballgames. There were no street fairs. No state fairs. No carnivals. Great Adventure was closed. We did not check out any concerts or music festivals. No Concerts at Jones Beach, no Summer at Lincoln Center, nor anything at the local park. We did not run to the mall. There simply was none of that this summer. Again, the one thing we did collectively was protest. 

We, or many of us, protested what we witnessed in Darnella Frazier's 8 minute and 46 second video of a Minneapolis policeman taking the life of George Floyd. That was the one thing we had, courtesy of our TVs, phones, laptops, tablets and computers. The two things we shared prior to these protests were our devices and that video. And that video viewed so many times on those devices, drove us into the streets. 

That and COVID. COVID and the loss, the fear, and the uncertainty that came with it. Many had lost loved ones due to COVID. Many had lost jobs due to COVID. And for many who did still work, they pondered for how long? Or whether their work puts them at risk of catching the virus. It was a country in lock down - told to stay in place. Frozen.

It was from this backdrop that we watched a Minneapolis police officer kill George Floyd. We watched it again and again as we navigated and dealt with the frustration and tension of staying in place. It was from this, that people left their homes and joined others in the street and marched. Hopefully, socially distanced and masked, but many were not. Regardless, the outcome was literally thousands of marches across the country, and millions of marchers. That was what Americans did this summer. 

And yes, there was violence. Sadly it looks like thirty plus people were killed in relation to some of these protests during the course of the summer. Those killed included protestors, police, property owners, counter-protestors, and those who simply got caught up in the chaos.  And yes, there was looting and property damage, entailing losses in the hundreds of millions and most likely ending with the destruction of too many businesses. 

That said, if you just look at the number of protests that took place, the number of protestors estimated at these protests. These numbers, these protests are unique. There has been nothing like this in our history. One accounting estimates that there was between May 24th and August 24th roughly 10,600 protests. Basically, more than 10,000 protests took place in the United States between Memorial Day and Labor Day in 2020. The New York Times asserts that in mid-June alone, contingent upon which of the four polls they detailed you go with, there were between 15 million and 26 million people who had participated in these protests or at least claimed such. 

The Times goes on to point out that the Women's March in 2017 involved between 3 and 5 million, and granted that happened on one day, it was engineered; it was organized. The Civil Rights Marches of the sixties involved hundreds of thousands as opposed to millions. What happened this summer was purely organic. There was no political engineering, no planning. Perhaps some tweeting the night before, but no permits, no planning of an itinerary, no staging areas, no map or path for the protest to follow through the cities and towns they proceeded through. There were no press releases, no coordination among national organizations that would typically sponsor such events. What happened this summer is unprecedented. 

We need to acknowledge this. We need to acknowledge that this summer millions protested in thousands of cities and towns across the US like we have never seen before. We need to acknowledge that these protests were in support of the idea that black lives matter. That is what drove these protests. The protestors who made up these protests were of diverse origins. Yet, all of them acknowledged that black lives matter.

That means something. Yes, there was violence. There was loss of life. There was destruction of property. Yes, there was the unauthorized removal and destruction of Confederate statues, among others. All of that happened, but that does not take away from the size and the scale of these spontaneous largely-peaceful protests. It does not take away from the fact that all of these people across the country just came together. All acknowledging that what happened to George Floyd should not happen to anyone. Further, they seem to assert or acknowledge that this happens all too often in America, and needs to stop. What happened to George Floyd should not happen. 

Lastly, a final thought or nod to my earlier essay where I only alluded to these peaceful protests, as if they were not there. As if they were not fact. To not acknowledge the peaceful protests that happened this summer in the US is perhaps to also not acknowledge what happened to George Floyd. It is also to not acknowledge, it is in fact to deny that what happened to George Floyd continues to happen all too often in the United States, and again needs to stop. 

References:

"Demonstrations & Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020", ACLED (The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project)

Larry Buchanan, Quoctrung Bui and Jugal K. Patel, (July 3rd, 2020), Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History, New York Times

"Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests", Wikipedia

But Still There

 Labor Day weekend. Typically ending with one last barbecue, one more time hanging out on the deck. One more Corona. Doing our thing one more time even if it is no longer the heat of July. Even if it is getting dark a little earlier. 

This year, however, is different. Oh perhaps folks will still get together but it is done with a certain consciousness. Regardless of whether they take COVID seriously or not. Even those who think it a conspiracy or something that will not effect them, they are still conscious of it, of its risks. Regardless of how we frame it; it is still there. 

Myself, this Labor Day I am asking what this summer will be remembered for. I ask that question not looking to my summer but to us as a people, as Americans. I do not normally ponder such. Certainly not on Labor Day. Typically I am much more in the camp of barbecues and the like. There is little thought involved. This year is different. With COVID, the violence of the political protests, and the political campaigns we are in the midst of and the heat of those campaigns,  all seem to require one to pause. 

That said, It is none of those that really bring me to this question. They play a role in the question but they do not drive or propel me to the question. Rather, I ask the question as we seem to miss, even ignore something. In some respects it has been done, played out, but not. We have in some way exhausted the topic perhaps. Regardless, for me this summer entails what is not on that list. 

For me personally this summer has largely been solitude, of trying to grasp, once more, what Wittgenstein was trying to convey in his Philosophical Investigations. That is my project and it will continue on. It started a long time ago and continues. Comparable perhaps to trying to make sense of the Beatle's White Album or Zeppelin's fourth album that is not even titled. 

Again, I ask this question as an American. What was this summer for us Americans? Even though I sat home reading some Austrian who was filling notebooks with his cryptic ideas some seventy years ago. I would pause, from my reading, and see what was happening in the news, on TV, online, and I saw something, and today it is ignored. At moments made light of. Discounted. But still there. 

Free Speech Rights and a Pandemic. . .

Our freedom of speech, only one of the freedoms found in First Amendment, first of the ten found in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution is probably one of our most over-used and simply abused freedoms given to us by our founders. It certainly gives our Second Amendment rights a run for its money. It is simply the case that our freedom of speech is often misapplied. It is routinely used to defend a range of positions, topics and domains, that it was probably never really intended for.

What follows is an over-analyzed over-done examination of the claim that our free speech was violated when YouTube and Vimeo removed two videos involving controversial COVID-19 medical research, and public health policy recommendations. What is arrived at are some thoughts regarding free speech, and why it is not relevant here regarding these videos.

Setting the Stage:

I refer above to its use in defending the two doctors in CA, Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, who challenged the standard telling of COVID-19 pandemic. That was the free speech controversy from two or perhaps three weeks ago now. More recently we had the Plandemic video. Both of these involve challenges to the COVID-19 response and both were quickly removed from YouTube and Vimeo. And with the removal of these videos, people responded that we and the doctors responsible for these videos had been harmed. Specifically, both the doctors' and our own freedom of speech had been violated.

These videos have their supporters, obviously. Folks who claim that regardless of what you or more importantly, Google believe, the owner of YouTube, they would like to decide for themselves regarding the content of these videos. These videos, they say, simply offer a compelling alternative theory of the nature of the virus, and our responses to it. They assert that the only reason these videos were removed was they challenged the mainstream orthodox state-controlled tale regarding COVID-19. And in their removal our free speech has been violated.

Their challenges to the videos' removal does lead one to ask why they were removed. What does justify a video being removed from YouTube? Obviously explicit violence,  graphic content. Pornography. Neither of these videos are any of those. Rather, these videos simply do challenge the standard narrative regarding our current public health crisis. They offer an alternative view of something that is effecting everyone of us today.

Why would we not want to consider such an alternative theory of what is going on? Are we that invested in our positions that we cannot consider such alternatives? Are we simply not able to consider the facts and evidence from other perspectives? Are we and more importantly YouTube and Vimeo not able to consider another theory of the events of the day?

Free Speech and the State:

With the above argument, it is very much a classic free speech argument. The videos contain no graphic violence, no nudity. Both simply offer positions which challenge assumptions embraced by our government, our public health system, and for that matter a large percentage of the public. And it seems at first blush correct to appeal to free speech here.

If you want to appeal to the historical application of free speech, the response to the pandemic is driven by our federal, state, and local governments. The policies they embrace are offered by our public health institutions - groups such as the Center for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health. All are part of the state, our government.

Our free speech as found in the Bill of Rights is what guides and allows for such a critique of how our leaders, our government, and likewise our bureaucracy have responded to this health crisis. And to have videos that provide such criticism removed is it seems to violate our right to free speech.

It seems only more appropriate to challenge our institutions, the government, considering the mortality rates, and the economic carnage in the last weeks and months. Such questions must be asked. One has to wonder if there is a better way to manage this virus. Is what we have in place truly the best that we could do? This is exactly why the founders put the right to free speech front and center in the Bill of Rights. They wanted the people to have a voice. The intent was to allow people to express their concerns and opinions - to challenge their government.

Considering all of this, the idea of free speech, and just how easy it is to embrace such questions and such videos, the question again becomes how is it that YouTube and Vimeo removed these videos? What justification is there for such?

Property versus Speech:

Now the initial response, typically to the above, is that YouTube and Vimeo have no relation to the Federal, State, and local governments and as such the First Amendment and with it the right to free speech is not really applicable. The companies controlling these platforms can remove what they want, whether the viewing public agrees and likes it or not.

Both are privately owned internet platforms distributing video content. If they see content that could be harmful to their business they are largely obligated to remove such. Maybe they fear that having such content on their platform risks censorship by the state. Better to self-regulate than have the federal government begin regulating their content. Or they simply see such content as not helpful regarding the current health-crisis. Their reasoning does not matter, it is their platform.

Any of these could justify their decision. Again, each respective company is responsible for their platform and the content offered through it. They do ultimately decide what videos will be seen on each. Private property trumps free speech. You are entitled to express your opinion, but you are not entitled to a microphone, a PA system, or a video on such an internet platform.

Many, however, are not happy with this read of the matter. Typically, their response is that granted YouTube and Vimeo are private entities, they should still acknowledge our right to free speech. No?

Those arguing such suggest YouTube and Vimeo even though they disagree with the opinions of the videos,  do have some sort of obligation to distribute such content. In short, to have a fair and free public discourse, which allows for all opinions and positions, it should be required or allowed that controversial alternative views be offered. Youtube and Vimeo in many ways have become the public square, and as such all are entitled to express their positions on them. In short, Google, YouTube, and Vimeo cannot be forced to distribute such content, but morally it is the right thing to do. In the name of free speech, or perhaps in the spirit of free speech, they should allow for such videos.

The Requirements of Free Speech and Communication?

The above are the standard arguments. I want to offer here an alternative to the above. I want to suggest that YouTube and Vimeo’s actions were not violations of free speech because the videos were not expressions of free speech. Rather, the videos can be seen as an abuse of free speech or were not allowed the license or benefit of free speech.

I want to suggest here that Vimeo and YouTube took them down in light of two points we routinely fail to acknowledge regarding speech: That free speech, aka the spirit of free speech, are limited projects, and that most speech is in fact not free.

Let us look at the first of these points: That free speech and the spirit of free speech are limited projects. Let us begin again with free speech. Again, it has its roots in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. The first ten amendments of the US Constitution basically limit what the state or government can do.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution asserts:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Again, the 1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights limits what the state can do. It limits how the federal, state and local government engages with their citizens. In this case the state cannot make any law involving the abridgment of free speech. It cannot limit the free speech of its people. So far we are largely echoing what was said above. The point is that the 1st Amendment is the prohibition of state action regarding the speech rights of its citizenry.

Now, when you embrace the idea of free speech or the spirit of free speech, it is largely in regard to political views, personal opinions, or self-expression regarding the political sphere. Perhaps, the key here is not so much what is shared, but where it is shared. Places such as a newspaper's letter to the editor regarding the mayor or city council, or a township's zoning board meeting. Any local municipal board, school boards, park departments, sometimes police departments - all will have their public meetings, public forums to hash out a particular point or challenge. All requesting public comment and public involvement. All typically scheduling meetings open to the public with time dedicated to questions and discussing concerns from those concerned, the public.

We find this even in corporate environments. We find management routinely attempting to encourage employees to share their actual opinions. They beg customers to share what they actually think of products, facilities and  services. In each of these the desire is for all to participate and engage. That said these events are very much regulated and controlled by management. The same can be said of the school and zoning boards, and likewise the city hall meetings.

In each of the above examples free speech is structured. Whether it has to be approved by the newspaper's editor or that you are given a few minutes to raise some concerns at a local zoning board meeting, or that you go to a business's event to discuss a new factory site or take a survey regarding a service or product. Each typically offers some time for questions or concerns, each allows for some to express their opinions and raise issues.

None of the above allow for one to offer a full dissertation challenging the organization's position, actions, or interests. None of the above, are going to allow you to take over the meeting or event and present your own position, whatever it is. If that does happen it certainly is not welcome. Such behavior could lead to arrest or at the least threat of such.

What we see in each of these is free speech regulated. This is not an indictment of free speech, but more a fact of basic communication. To communicate with another, to convey a message to another simply requires a process, a procedure, a certain time, a certain place, a certain mail address, a certain format. Even regarding First Amendment free speech rights, one cannot threaten another, one cannot just start offering up foul language, one cannot randomly yell fire in a crowded theater. Even 1st Amendment speech rights are regulated limited. Regardless of where you are, there is a procedure, a protocol required to communicate, and the same is true of free speech.

Again this requirement for process or procedure is required for any type of communication. Whether, it is a wink of an eye, a handshake, a dash of Morris code, a poem, or appearing on TV. All of these and communication in general have basic requirements for the message to be sent and received. To watch an interview on TV requires that you know what a TV is, what an interview is. The point is that for an any act of communication to happen requires certain conditions to be met.

So it is not surprising that moments where you engage in what we call free speech, also have conditions. That is assuming that "free speech" is comparable to a handshake, a wink, a conversation, etc. I would suggest that the requirement for free speech is that it is language which challenges politically. And that can be applied in a group of three friends, or in the pages of a local newspaper, or on YouTube. Wherever it is speech that challenges the situation politically. If you are making an assertion that is unpopular, it is in the domain of free speech.

Free speech is often provocative and confrontational but always political, meaning you are challenging someone who somehow holds some type of power, some type or authority, most commonly political or economic. Free speech does not, generally, work against military power, law enforcement, nor a thug that simply embraces brute force and violence.

Free speech is speech that challenges power structures. It in fact reinforces those power structures. It reinforces the social contract, whether this contract involve a state or a group of business partners, some senior and some junior.

Going back to our two videos that we began with, both are challenging political power, specifically federal and state government policies initiated in response to the COVID-19 virus. And as I said above, those defending these videos and their authors assert that this is exactly why they were removed - the videos challenged those in power.

The response to such a claim, however, is the millions of videos on YouTube and Vimeo. Many of them involving every conceivable political discussion. Many of them involving discussions of COVID-19 and our response to it, our failures and our successes. Likewise there are videos of every political theme, challenging Republican and Democratic talking points. There is Marxist theory and likewise call to arms for capitalist, even the rallies of the President are there. Of course, some of these are more dangerous than others, but all are allowed and present.

And there are exceptions. YouTube has with some controversy eliminated from their collections videos advocating Nazi and Neo-Nazi positions. Typically, though YouTube and Vimeo embrace the spirit of free speech, They welcome videos critical of their platforms and their failings. Whether they listen to or consider such videos is another thing, but such are available on both platforms.

So, these two videos were not removed due to their political challenges to our pandemic response. And considering that, their removal is not a violation of free speech or its spirit. Regardless of their actual threat to those in power, that was not why they were removed.

Once again. . . Why were they removed?

We still do not know why those videos were removed. We argue above it has nothing to do with free speech. And I have I hope explained above what I meant when I asserted earlier that free speech and the spirit of free speech are limited projects. I still owe an explanation regarding my claim that speech is commonly not free, though I have I think at least opened the door to such an explanation.

Let's start again with the idea that all language, all communication, requires certain conditions be met, for them to occur. This suggest that various groups, various professions, all have unique vocabularies, and communicate in varies ways. All of which are associated with the tasks, functions, and goals of the individual, groups, cultures, etc. This in turn includes such professions as medical doctors, medical researchers, epidemiologists, etc.

We can see this in how a General Practitioner / Medical Doctor ideally engages his or her patients, versus a Medical Researcher presenting the results of his or her research study.  In each, audience, function, the practices involved betrays who each of the two are.

In short, communicating with patients would typically involve the explanation of medical diagnoses, medical procedures and medical testing etc., and all with an awareness of who the patient is. A medical researcher on the other hand will come with a summary of his conclusions, a hypothesis, a history of how he or she arrived there, an overview of the experiments conducted to test the hypothesis, etc. These are normal everyday practices in these medical communities. A nurse in an ER would likewise have a different set of practices, and would likewise be communicating those practices embraced in the ER in a certain fashion.

In none of the above do we find that Youtube videos are standard procedure. It is not how medical research is communicated. Nor is YouTube how doctors or nurses communicate with, or discuss their patients. Nor are Youtube videos audiences typically interested in such research. Now, the video involving the two doctors was actually a press briefing. The information was for a general audience.

Yet, what was the information. Without going into detail, they were making recommendations regarding public health and individual behavior. That, however, is not the standard method of the medical community, of which all are part of here. Typically, before going public with research results or any announcement to the public, there is discussion within the community. The doctors, nor the creators of Plandemic had no consultations with others in the field, no sharing of their data with others in the profession. There was no review of the assumptions upon which their work rested, despite the fact that their conclusions challenged the entire public health community's response to the current pandemic.

In short, what they offered could be seen as medical malpractice. To offer to the general public recommendations based upon what could be a flawed study, that was not peer reviewed, that was not shared with their fellow doctors, nor epidemiologists,  nor anyone else. They just went public. And such is dangerous considering that they were making recommendations to the public on how we respond to this current health crisis. For medical doctors to disregard policy, and procedure, especially at such a time is to risk doing harm, is not acceptable.

The reason that the doctors' video and the other Plandemic video were removed was because they both were affronts to medical science by medical doctors, members of the medical community. They chose to do this not through a scientific process but rather through press briefings and in the case of "Plandemic" a documentary. Neither their work nor the way in which they shared that work involved the standard processes or procedures in either the healthcare or the medical research fields. And further, these actions were done as doctors, as members of the healthcare and medical research communities. In short, they took advantage of their standing in these fields, yet disregarded the very practices and procedures embraced by these communities, and which give them such standing.

And it is this fact that caused these videos to be removed. They disregarded the practices, procedures, and obligations of the medical communities they were part. Further they did this in the middle of a major health crisis. In doing so they lost their license to free speech. By disregarding the practices and procedures of the healthcare community, they lost the right to introduce themselves as medical doctors offering a medical research study. They lost any right, any license they had for making such claims. What they did may or may not be grounds for medical malpractice, but it certainly justifies the removal of their videos from YouTube and Vimeo.

And this in turn goes to my claim that speech is not free. Typically, speech is dictated by the conditions of who the speaker is, where he or she sits, and what he or she has done to be allowed to speak. Has the speaker met the requirements to speak? In the above we have medical doctors who did not abide by medical practice. And medical practice, like any other field or profession, does determine what can be said, when it can be said, and likewise how it is said. And if someone ignores these requirements and obligations, in the medical profession or any other profession, such speakers should and will be ignored or challenged.

One does have the right of free speech in the medical field. One can politically challenge in it. Just not in regard to the patients they treat, nor the research they do. Typically, however, not at the time of treatment. They can and protest and challenge medical facilities, practices, medical findings, fellow doctors, but here again there are procedures for each.

Last point. I am sure there are other medical researchers with similarly disreputable research that can be found on YouTube and Vimeo. Their videos I am sure continue to be available on Vimeo and YouTube. Why have they not been removed you ask? Why is every person that speeds on the highway not ticketed? Their license not taken away? 

Bleach or Sarcasm?

To drink bleach or not? That was the big question, at least for the media and likewise Facebook this past weekend. I sadly spend too much time with both currently. It is hard not to when socially isolated like we have been and most likely will be for at least a while longer. Certainly those of us in NY.

The question obviously had its origins at last Thursday's White House coronavirus press briefing. Those original questions or assertions, whatever they were, were complicated, however, by the comments on Friday when the President claimed that they were sarcasm. In short, what he had said the day before regarding the use of UV light and disinfectants for the treatment of coronavirus were now he claimed, sarcasm.

So forget the original question of whether he was advocating drinking bleach or Lysol.  Now we have to wonder whether the claim of sarcasm is plausible? Was the President in fact being sarcastic when he suggested the following:

"Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light ... and then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re gonna test that,” Trump said, addressing Bryan. “And then I see disinfectant, where it knocks it [coronavirus] out in a minute — one minute — and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because, you see, it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So, that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me."

I don't think he was being sarcastic. But the question becomes: How did I arrive there? Why do I assert that the President was not being sarcastic last Thursday when he suggested the above.  In short, we depart the political theater of the coronavirus press briefings and explore here what is required for something to be sarcastic. Basically, I am asking how sarcasm works?

Truth Conditions, Dictionaries, and Context. . .

Now for myself,  a student of analytic philosophy and specifically philosophy of language back in the 90s, this brings up memories of "truth conditions". In semantics or pragmatics a "truth condition" is the condition under which a sentence is true (courtesy of Wikipedia).  Such things are or were applied in a semantic theory of truth, which attempts a correspondence between meaning, language, and truth.

Now for our purposes here, we need not dig into such semantic theories of truth. I hope. Such is just beyond the scope of this essay. And I have not kept current on such topics. But my feint memories of "truth conditions" might just be adequate to arrive at a working theory of sarcasm. So here it goes.

For a sarcastic remark to work simply requires that it be obviously false. That is to say that its "truth condition" must be obviously false. You cannot, if my theory is correct, if it is true, utter a sarcastic assertion or statement that is true. For sarcasm to work requires that the claim be false. 

But we have gotten ahead of ourselves. Before we go any further let's explore the definition of sarcasm. A quick look in Dictionary.com tells us that it is a noun and involves harsh or bitter derision or irony. It can also be a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark. It insults and can involve irony. Wikipedia points out that it is "most noticeable in spoken word, sarcasm is mainly distinguished by the inflection with which it is spoken[5] and is largely context-dependent."

I question the Dictionary.com offering that sarcasm can involve only harsh or bitter derision. To call someone stupid, to insult someone is not to be sarcastic. Sarcasm does insult and can be harsh, but it is more than either of those. Rather the sarcastic phrase, the sarcastic assertion, requires irony and as Wikipedia points out a certain tone or inflection. It is, Wikipedia says largely context-dependent. What I want to suggest is that the element of irony that Dictionary.com points to, is what I describe as the "obviously false" truth condition. Further, I want to merge this irony, this obviously false claim and put it within a certain context, a certain history. The false claim must context-dependent to be sarcasm.

The tale of Mr Clean and the Timekeeper

An example may help. Imagine a business office. One of the workers in this office is always late. Whether it be an early morning meeting, a client call or a lunch and learn event - he is late. Another of his co-workers is simply not the neatest of folks. Whether it is his desk, or his white shirt after lunch, or the amount of clutter in the back seat of his car.  So one is late and the other is just a mess.

Now this office is also known among the network of various branches and offices it is a part of as the most sarcastic group. So with that our one coworker is known as the Timekeeper, because of his issues with time, and the other is known as Mr. Clean. Both names are courtesy of the sarcastic team that work with Mr Clean and the Timekeeper. Each has taken some verbal abuse in this vein regarding their habits and practices.

Two things can be gleamed regarding sarcasm from this tale, embracing the idea of truth conditions and context. We know that the Timekeeper is no timekeeper and that Mr Clean is not so clean. The assertion that the one is timely is false, and likewise the other being clean is also false. Likewise, their nicknames are only queerly or ironically appropriate. And we accept this because we are aware of an office staff that has embraced or given each their respective nickname and routinely does such. That is the context of these sarcastic assertions or in this case their respective nick-names. 

Further, you see the other offices engage this sarcastic bunch in a certain fashion. You routinely witness people from other offices ask this office,"You are you serious? Right? You are not being sarcastic here?" The office that Mr Clean and the Timekeeper originate from are simply known for their sarcasm. Others know to confirm and qualify what is in fact the case.

So for sarcasm to be understood, requires that the person listening have some history, some prior experience with the speaker. They know that the person uttering this claim routinely utters such and they know that what is being uttered is not only not true but most likely the opposite of what he or she asserts. If they did not have this knowledge, then the speaker's assertion will simply be seen at some point as simply false, and not helpful to business or anything else.

Imagine a new employee arrives and is told that the Timekeeper would be on time at his client's meeting. Of course the Timekeeper is late, and the new employee has to wonder what happened. He did not know the history of the Timekeeper and his coworkers. It is all driven by the context of the office - it is context dependent.

The new employee who was not aware of that office's embrace of sarcasm brings us to one last point: the difference between sarcasm and lying. If no one informed this new hire of that office's practices, it could be costly. It could lead to embarrassment, or cost a deal. At the end of the event the newcomer could claim he was lied to. He was told that just the opposite would play out. For sarcasm to work requires ironically just the opposite. Again, it needs context and history, understanding, even if it requires that the speaker unveil the false statement, the sarcasm.

The only way one can routinely mix such obviously false statements into a business practice or any social interaction is for there to be some history between the speakers or interlocutors. Again, sarcasm entails obviously false statements uttered by a person who routinely utters such. And he or she is engaging an audience, a person, a date, a business partner, who knows that he or she does such. And all of that is sarcasm.

Our President, Hyperbole, and Fake News

We go back to our President and his claim that the above statement was in fact sarcasm. It could be.  The suggestion that we use UV light or disinfectants to treat coronavirus internally does not sound too serious. So he might very well have been baiting the media and press. And he certainly has a reputation for asserting falsehoods. So he very well could be like the staff of our office above. The problem is how he uses those falsehoods, those truth conditions. He never at the end of a conversation flips them and acknowledges that the truth is in fact the other way. He never warned or hinted of his sarcasm.

He did not at the end of that series of suggestions acknowledge that it is unlikely that such cures will happen. Further, he does not have a history of being sarcastic. At least I do not see it. He does call people names. Typically, though, these names reference an actual personal characteristic, whether that be in regard to one's height, or one's personality, one's policy leanings, or energy levels. Typically he goes for the literal.

Likewise when he is caught lying, his supporters will simply defend him by asserting that he is engaging in hyperbole. He often exaggerates things, whether it be crowd numbers or testing numbers. Exaggeration is typically not seen as sarcasm. It may be close but they are not the same. The truth conditions again illustrate the point. To exaggerate a crowd size is to typically to want people to believe there were more people at an event. To be assert that the crowds were huge and be sarcastic would mean that no one was there.

Another area that could be sarcasm is his application of the term "fake news", which the President routinely applies to CNN and the like. If you consider our above discussion, you quickly realize, however, that he has no interest in this being sarcastically true. If it were the case that he was being sarcastic regarding what he describes as fake news, that would mean he perceives it as true.

Again, for the term or the assertion to work sarcastically requires that it be false. For the term "fake news" to be sarcastic requires that the sentence or attribute "fake news" be false. And this in turn would mean that report or the reporter deemed "fake news" is perceived by the President to be true or truthful. And we know that is not the case. The President does not apply the term "fake news" to reports and reporters that he deems truthful, or accurate. In short, the President is not being sarcastic when he asserts that a report is "fake news".

So in the end, we can agree that though the above series of questions or suggestions could be sarcastic, they probably were not intended as such. They largely are false. Neither UV light nor any type of disinfectant is going to be the cure for COVID 19. What is lacking for the statements to be seen as sarcasm is the history. The President just does not engage in sarcasm. Few Presidents do.

Now this President as we point out does engage in insult, name calling, hyperbole, and making false assertions. He does routinely claim that news reports are fake news. That said, I have not seen any case of sarcasm. And sarcasm, as we have illustrated above, requires some history, some standard usage, a context, and we have none here. In short, the President was not engaging in sarcasm and I am not exaggerating nor being sarcastic.

I have known Neil Peart for over forty years. Known of Neil Peart for forty years? Listened to Neil Peart for forty years? At the very least the music and words of this man. I did not know him. He was simply a man, a musician, who performed on some of the most listened-to albums in my music collection - old fashion vinyl. And somehow, through those albums, that music, he had more of an influence on me than most others who were far closer to me.

He was an amazing drummer. There is no disputing that. You can hear it. You can see it. For me good drummers are almost more a pleasure to watch. Good singers pull you into the song. Live, a singer’s presence, their gaze, their place on the stage – all effect the song you are listening to them perform. The song, the voice and the singer must be one for a song to work. Drummers though? It is different. I can just be mesmerized by what a drummer does. Forget the song, I can just watch them go, ignoring all else that is beyond their drum kit.

Neal Peart had that. In the end though, this essay has nothing to do with that.

No, what got me was his lyrics. He opened up the world of ideas to me. Rush when I first heard them continued what I had started with Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Thin Lizzy, and so forth. With Rush, however, there was these lyrics, these words - these ideas.

When it came to my music, to what I listened to, it was all about the guitar. It was just loud guitar, guitars, tone. Often distorted. Amplified. Sometimes it was quiet picking. I liked the contrasts. Still do. And all of it over a beat that just drove and propelled. Amidst this were vocals that challenged, Whether it be Steven Tyler, Philip Lynott, or Geddy Lee. They provoked. Some with such a range, some with just a certain voice. Sometimes howled, sometimes whispered, sometimes screamed. There was no crooning here. That was rock music for me in 1978. It largely still is.

And Rush was very much part of that scene, but their lyrics were different. I was a sophomore in a high school English class when I realized that their song “Xanadu” was a nod to Samuel Coleridge and his poem “Kubla Khan”. Likewise, it was around the same time that I discovered that 2112 was a recreation of Ayn Rand’s book “Anthem”.

As much as I loved Zeppelin, I never did track down Tolkien’s Hobbit and all. That is despite not only Zeppelin, but one of my local favs, a cover-acts out of Easton PA, Gandalf. Nope. Still did not read Tolkien. Ayn Rand’s “Anthem”, however, I did track down. I was always reading something, but before this, it was about World War II and the mafia. I loved books about Patton, Rommel, and Lucky Luciano. I kid you not. Rush and Anthem changed all of that.

And from there I became obsessed with Ayn Rand. I read much of her work. Bought it hook line and sinker for a period.

And who is Ayn Rand? She is a novelist. She is known for Anthem, a short futuristic novelette. She is known also for the Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. the latter two are larger, more developed works, proper novels. In each of her stories, the central protagonists struggled to create. Meaning and value for Rand were purely found in the individual's act of creation.

Rand went on, based upon her literary work, to develop a philosophy centered upon these acts of creation. Her later writing became entirely focused upon the development of a philosophy driven by this theme. She embraced the idea of a complete philosophy, beginning with a metaphysics, an epistemology, ethics, etc. Her work here was largely based upon and began with the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle.

Her work in this sphere challenged modern philosophy. She asserted that it was modern philosophy that was had lost its way and that had ultimately led us to the struggles described in her novels. Likewise, it was for her modern philosophy that had led to socialism and communism, what she saw evil and corrupt systems, as they abandoned the individual. Again, all of this began with the struggles she depicted in her literary work.Out of this she ultimately arrived at an ardent defense of the capitalism.

And for me, all of this began with Neil Peart and Rush. I had gone from Neil Peart's tale of a man discovering a guitar in the song "2112" to this. I had gone from buying every Rush album to buying every Any Rand book. I embraced all of it. I ultimately did abandon her ideas, but regardless, it was her writing that inspired me to go and pursue and complete a degree, a BA in philosophy. I regret not pursuing philosophy further, but such is life. If I had not listened to and embraced the music, the lyrics, of Rush and Neil Peart, I would not have known any of it.

So there is a debt there. Something is owed to Neil Peart. To leave it there, however, would not be a full accounting. His lyrics are simply more than just references to an interesting and controversial author. It was not, however, till late 2019 that I fully realized this. I somehow arrived back at Rush a few months ago. I did now and again listen to their stuff, but musically, I had moved on. They like all bands evolved, and likewise my musical taste had changed. At some point I just no longer related as much to the band, to their sound. Though I never stopped listening to La Villa Strangiato! Yet that song is an instrumental.

Somehow last year I did return to them and realized that Peart was really doing something quite interesting, almost intellectual history. I somehow, while on my train into Grand Central, listening their album, Farewell to Kings arrived at this. The various Rush songs that had inspired me to pursue philosophy 40 years ago, were not outliers or one-offs. Neal Peart I suspect had, through his lyrics been exploring some of the same woods and forests, some of the same briar patches, as myself and many others.

Neil Peart – 1977

I can see it now, the fever of Rand gone, and likewise catching up to Peart regarding others he read and his thoughts on them. The song "Farewell to Kings" alludes to the enlightenment era. It is the abandonment of faith, the divine. Not just the elimination of kings, but the embrace of reason. Historically, you can see it in the American and French Revolutions – two literal farewells to kings or queens, and almost simultaneously - the Enlightenment.

On that same album we have Xanadu, a homage to Coleridge, a romantic poet who wrote and published the poem Kubla Khan in the early nineteenth century. Peart has transitioned from the Enlightenment to Romanticism – from reason to wisdom or better yet mysticism. It is through an ancient text that he finds his way to this mystical place and immortality.

Go back to 2112, the album preceding Rush’s Farewell To Kings. Peart’s protagonist talks of his discovery of a guitar that is then demolished by the elders of his community. It is so very much like Rand’s protagonist in Anthem. In the song Xanadu, however, we have one who searches out the mystical and becomes immortal. Both songs involve lone individuals. Both involve discovery,  actually, recovery, or re-discovery. In both, they discover what had been. A theme explored by many and starting with Plato?

Rush ends the album, Farewell to Kings with Cygnus X-1 Book 1, a bit of science fiction, which was another of Peart’s fascinations. The tale of Cygnus X-1 is picked up again in their next album, Hemispheres. It is the whole of side one of Hemispheres. Somehow, the dash of science fiction introduced in Farewell to Kings, however, now becomes an exploration of the Nietzschean theme of Apollo and Dionysus. Apollo, the son of Zeus in Greek mythology; the god of the sun, and bringer of reason, and Dionysus – the god of wine, chaos, of emotions and instincts. Nietzsche again is in the Romantic tradition, but he is later in that tradition.

Nietzsche, in his work, The Birth of Tragedy explores the tension between reason and emotion. Peart through his lyrics and science fiction, like Nietzsche, and Rand too, likewise explores the tension between these themes. For Peart, and Nietzsche, both gods are needed. For Peart, his lyrics, his story is again of recovery, or rediscovery. It entails a return to Cygnus X-1 and reclaiming what or who was lost – ultimately the balance between reason and emotion.

Perhaps, I go too far, but this is what I see here, what I find in Peart’s lyrics. Themes found in Greek tragedy, and likewise pondered by nineteenth and twentieth century romantic thinkers.

Jump ahead to Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures, and Subdivisions – the next three Rush albums after Hemispheres. It is again similar themes, similar tensions. The title song on Permanent Waves explores the relation between art and commerce on the airwaves followed by a song titled Free Will. The song Subdivisions for me is an exploration of the struggle for self-knowledge in our schools and all they entail, amidst the sprawl of suburbia. In Subdivisions, Peart embraces a real-estate term. I, however, always took it to be about the cliques and sub-cultures found in those high school hallways, and the alienation that results. For me it was sociology. It is the title of the album.

So again, Peart and Rush start with the Enlightenment in Farewell To Kings. They find their way to Romanticism in Hemispheres, and ultimately arrive at the late 20th century. Lyrics and songs exploring the self in relation to other, in relation to capitalism, in relation to schools and suburbia. Throughout, Peart is pondering how one makes art, how one expresses one’s self. Whether it be Nietzsche, or an exploration of art for markets, or the embrace of poets and authors, or even the embrace of Mark Twain’s favorite; they all explore the challenge of self-expression in a shared world.

I stop. It is late in another night of exploring these themes. This started as things I pondered while listening again to Rush’s music in recent months – my hour long train rides in and out of the city. And then there was Peart's passing. I point to something here. However you catalogue Neil Peart’s lyrics; they did and do provoke me.

So I. . . we still have his music, his lyrics, but the world will not be the same without this individual. He will be missed.

A Little TV or a Misapplication of the Principle of Charity

As I finished dinner and sipped my coffee, I flipped the dial of the TV. Actually, I played with my TV remote, and found myself watching as I often do, Rachel Maddow. Just another night of TV, yet tonight, I found it somehow revealing. (I actually began writing this Thursday, August 29th)

Again, Rachel Maddow, as do all TV commentators, was attempting to make sense of what is happening in the world today, specifically, what the Trump Administration is attempting to do and why. All very fascinating, and yes a very much in-vogue hobby for many. Tonight, however, was more than that. Tonight, I had a glimpse of what drives the various stories reported on.

When I say I glimpsed something, what I am suggesting is that  I grasped briefly a thought process that could allow one to act in the ways the Trump Administration does. Now much of what the Trump Administration does is driven by business interests. They acknowledged that from the start. From their first days in office they held that business interests have been ignored and treated unfairly, and that their administration is changing this.

Protecting business interest is one of their primary concerns. That concern is not what I glimpsed tonight. That concern is not what I want to point to here. What I saw is a complementary belief. Perhaps it facilitates, and allows for that interest in business. In short, what I saw was a view of the world and of ourselves that basically condones or even promotes the pursuit of business. Perhaps, it was almost an an epistemic offering, but now I am stretching. I would argue though that a philosophical point can be inferred from what was glimpsed, entailing moral, ethical and epistemic positions. That is what I want to explore here or at least hint at.

Going back for a moment to what was on the TV, to what Maddow was reporting; it was basically was three stories. The first being the Administration's announced plan to rollback regulations relating to methane released in fracking. Number two was the opening of Alaska's Tongass National Forest to mining, logging and oil drilling, And the third is Maria Isabel Bueso.

The first is simply the elimination of regulations regarding the release of Methane. Methane must be dealt with in fracking and the drilling for natural gas. Today, the methane release, like much of the fracking process is regulated. Today, you cannot just release it into the atmosphere. It contributes to global warming. It is a pollutant. The release of methane into the atmosphere is not a good thing. Regardless, with the elimination of regulations regarding its release, natural gas producers will not have to ponder such.

The second involves the Tongass National Forest. The President has requested his Agriculture Secretary open large parts of the 16.7-million acre forest up to logging, oil drilling, and mining. For those who believe in global warming that is controversial and dangerous. Logging and drilling for oil in such a place is simply upsetting. It is simply a pristine wilderness whose beauty demands that we leave it untouched.

Lastly, there is Maria Isabel Bueso, a young woman who since birth has suffered from a disfiguring genetic disease. At the age of seven she was invited by medical researchers to join a clinical trial in the US. She is originally from Guatemala. Today, Maria is in her twenties and considers going to grad school. The trials she participated in were a success. She continues to live, but needs routine treatment for the disease. Treatment is still only available in the US. Guatemala does have such medical offerings today.

Despite this fact, the Trump Administration informed her recently that she must leave the country or be deported. And apparently she is not the only one with such a life threatening illness, who has been asked to leave the US and return to their country of origin. Regardless of their health conditions and the lack of treatment available to them in their countries. Basically people with life threatening illnesses who have only found treatments in the US are now being asked to leave the US. Basically, being asked to die?

So, we are left with this unsettling question of how the Trump Administration can act in such ways. How can they disregard the cost and damage caused by methane? How can they suggest the destruction of a National forest? How can they send a young woman to her death?

And that is my intent here - to better understand how one can arrive at such actions. The profit motive and the protection of American lives and American interests can only go so far. And I want to believe it is really not stupidity, greed or racial animus that drives any of these. There is I believe something more.

As I said, I saw or heard a glimpse of something that I believe could hold the key to my question, and to the answer I search for.  Maddow's show started with a reference to when Dick Cheney shot a man, accidentally, while quail hunting. That happened back in 2006. It happened on the Armstrong Ranch in TX. It is a ranch owned by the Armstrong family, which is integral to Republican politics in TX.

That influence can be seen today in the fact that Anne Idsal, who hails from the Armstrong family, will possibly become responsible for Clean Air policy enforcement at the EPA. This is despite the fact that she has little knowledge of environmental issues much less any scientific background relating to such. She is a political appointee. I am not wanting to challenge such things. Granted her family's history it is to be expected.

What I am intrigued with is a quote from her during the course of an interview, which Maddow proceeded to play and repeat at least once. It is this quote that drives this essay, and offers a view of something more.

“I think it’s possible that humans have some type of impact on climate change,” she said. “I just don’t know the extent of that.” (I found the quote in Grist.org. I believe it is the same one as Rachel offered up. And I must confess I never heard of grist.org before)

We hear such claims routinely from conservative pundits, politicians, and so forth. It is this quote, however, that I want to look at. It is this quote that allows us see what justifies the destruction of massive forests, the release of toxins into our environment, and even the death of a young women. Perhaps it does not justify such actions, but it can reveal a thought process that brings you to such actions. I want to forget the various political intrigues and focus on that one quote and where it leads.

In short, what I try to do here is embrace what I call the "principle of charity". Whether you read Augustine, Alfred Tarski, Donald Davidson, or even Richard Rorty, you encounter it. I find hints of in Aristotle. In a nut shell, the principle of charity asserts that to interpret another's sentence or belief which we do not understand requires us to consider their other utterances and beliefs, many of which they share with us. Through such an exercise we often can make sense of something we at first did not grasp.

Now the ideal is to converse with the individual. This is perhaps the method of an anthropologist. This method is, however, time consuming and requires the other person be willing to engage. If that person is missing or you simply have no time, then you infer. You assume they share a great deal of your beliefs and infer their motives from what you believe.

This is a much more tenuous game. We do it all the time, and in some cases it works, others not. The phrase, "They all but said it." entails such a process. In a court of law, such a suggestion would be seen as circumstantial. Are there things that only the murderer can know? Such things make for a good crime drama. When trying to make sense of others and what they believe and what they actually mean when they speak or act, inference from our own beliefs is often all we got. Yet, it is still tenuous.

When we consider the above, regarding the sentence "“I think it’s possible that humans have some type of impact on climate change,” she said. “I just don’t know the extent of that.” offered up by a person who just became responsible for the administration of a key EPA office, you start with just understanding the role and function of the EPA. The EPA is the nexus of science, regulation, business, industry, and local communities. All of these converge at the EPA.

The EPA is basically responsible for the enforcement of  environmental law in the US. Further, the Supreme Court over ten years ago asserted that the Clean Air Act was broad enough to entail global warming and that emissions of green house gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are pollutants that should be properly regulated by the EPA, That decision has survived several challenges. It seems from those court decisions that global warming, regardless of the actual scientific case for global warming, has been largely settled in the US.

We go from that legal position offered up by the US Supreme Court, to the scientific data, which has been coming in for the last fifty years. It continues to come in, and from a range of scientific sources and domains. All of it basically reinforcing and confirming the theory that the planet is warming and that this is a man-made phenomena. The theory of global warming appears to be true.

From these two considerations, you wonder how it is that a person that is uncertain about the role of human activity in global warming came to be responsible for EPA enforcement efforts. The tension here is obvious. To make such an assertion required that she ignore decisions by the US Supreme Court and 50 years of science. She is still uncertain regarding whether human activity plays a role in such.

My question again is how does one not only ignore such but get such a job despite such beliefs? The expectation is that a person employed by the EPA would acknowledge decisions of the US Supreme Court. Likewise, considering the technical and scientific nature of the EPA, they would respect the scientific data indicating that global warming is a man-made phenomena.

Today, however, Anne Idsal is a Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator of the EPA. So if we want to make sense of this we need to review our assumptions. Typically, most stop here. We just encounter such instances and we stop and we shake our heads and do not know how to proceed. How do we deal with the nonsensical?

Pat Travers of guitar playing fame, however, encourages us to go on. He offers up in his song that we stop, and we smile, and we try it again.

So again, we look at the assertion. We again consider that despite ignoring precedents established by the US Supreme Court and likewise what the scientific data embraced by the court and the EPA, she has a key position in the organization. How? Again, it is not due to stupidity, It is not from a pure obsession for profit. It is something more. If not these, then what?

Now I had introduced the "principle of charity" earlier. It was in part through an application of it that I raised the issue of US law and scientific research. These are just two basic elements commonly associated with the EPA, Yes, it is typically accepted as fact that the EPA is derived from US law and science. What I want to stress here is not that this is fact, however, but rather that these are commonly held beliefs that are held to be fact. They are facts that most believe. The goal here is to not understand facts, but rather to understand the belief system of one who does not subscribe to such beliefs and who does not see them as facts.

And that is the next piece of this puzzle. A person who makes such a claim who is in such a position at the EPA  probably does not hold the above assertions to be true. They probably do not hold to be true that the EPA enforces the law of the land regarding environmental issues. Further, they do not hold as true that the Supreme Court has ruled that global warming falls under the Clean Air Act. Likewise, a person in such a role at the EPA who makes such claims probably does not hold science to be true. At the very least they have doubts about all of the  above.

This is a common theme in the principle of charity literature, certainly that is the case for Donald Davidson. To determine what another believes is to determine what they hold to be true. To believe something is to hold it as true. Further, the large set of truths that we can agree upon culminates in a shared language. All those little phrases that we use to navigate everyday life are held to be true, and they are for the most part shared. Truths such as fire is hot and ice is cold, or that the night is dark and the day is light. It is from such basics that we start. We proceed from what is seen as the common or the obvious to those sentences that do challenge, where there is disagreement. That is the thought.

So from a comment regarding uncertainty regarding human involvement in global warming coming from a senior official at the EPA, I arrive at the following: That such a comment from such a person probably entails skepticism regarding the science of global warming. Further, that person is probably likewise skeptical regarding the role of the EPA in the enforcement of environmental law. Lastly, they are skeptical of the EPA being responsible for the Clean Air Act, relating to domains relevant to global warming. They do not affirm such things as true.

Now let us be fair here. We know much of these talking points already. If she were pushed she probably would concede that the EPA is responsible for environmental law including the Clean Air Act. She may even concede that the Clean Air Act today is seen as legally relevant to responding to global warming, just that the science is not completely in on that. She would concede that the Supreme Court has ruled on this but perhaps prematurely. She again can stress here that we really do not know. Skepticism provides some space for such. Despite fifty years of research.

We are with our skepticism introducing a range, or a continuum of options. Despite her inability to say such things are true, she is likewise unable to say they are false. So I would like to go a step further. Imagine replacing truth and falsity with a numeric scale. 0 being false and 1 being true. We now have a range of decimal values as opposed to either a 0 or 1, including .25 or .5 or even .8.  The closer to 1 we get, the more certain we are that it is true. Those that we are more skeptical of are closer to 0.

I offer the above scheme only to illustrate that we value some sentences more than we do others, and perhaps likewise are more certain about them. We are more committed to those we value and believe to be true. Likewise if we are skeptical we are less committed. No doubt truth is probably not the only way to value a sentence but the point perhaps is that certain sentences and beliefs are more highly valued than others. Further, the tension or conflict comes not from the belief or sentence, but the value placed in the belief or sentence.

We have already surmised that she is skeptical of the Supreme Court and scientific research in relation to global warming. With a set of values it is now feasible that though she does not grant truth she is not ruling them false. Rather she just lowers their value in relation to other beliefs that she values more. She holds them as closer to truth than the others. The things we say and believe betray our values.

The game now truly becomes one of speculation. Again, we are trying to understand what allows for people to eliminate methane regulations, destroy pristine forests, and force people out of the country who due to that order, will most likely die. Why engage in such actions? What values drives such actions?

Up to this point we have been exploring the language and perhaps the beliefs of Anne Idsal, one EPA Administrator. Let us agree this is not about Ms Idsal. Not at all about her really. I used her one comment and her position at the EPA to arrive at the point that someone like her who has such a position who makes such comments probably does not value certain findings in science, nor certain Supreme Court rulings. Nor, ultimately certain policies at the EPA.

We now must broaden our scope. If not Ms Idsal, then who? Now it does not have to be someone from the EPA. Yes the EPA is responsible for the regulations regarding methane releases in fracking, but they are not responsible for Alaska's Tongass National Forest. The agency responsible for the Tongass is the USDA. and likewise, neither the EPA nor the USDA are responsible for the removal of Maria Isabel Bueso. That is the domain of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So this is not a particular policy unique to a particular agency or group.

Rather, we are looking for something that cuts across these domains. A set of beliefs that informs decisions in each of these agencies and domains. We assume a certain coherence or continuity among the various agencies making up the administration. They are all part of one government. They are all actions of one administration.

Ultimately, these become not issues of a particular agency, but political positions of a particular administration and President. The earlier numeric value relating to each sentences's truth now becomes a set of values, largely but not exclusively political values. And they are not only the values of a particular President and his administration. They are the values and beliefs of the people who voted for him. The question now becomes: How do we determine these values from one statement regarding the role of science and the Supreme Court in relation to global warming along with the above actions that we have listed multiple times now?

The proper way is to dialogue. Engage. That is the ideal. As this is a hypothetical, a fiction, we will simply infer from my own beliefs assuming that many of these are shared.

What I arrive at is a dismissal of science regarding global warming. A dismissal of scientists and researchers as they too have an agenda. Their research is not to discover truth, but to maintain a career, a livelihood. Such beliefs regarding the work of scientists and researchers certainly can lead to skepticism regarding their work. It seems sufficient to not grant truth. Such skepticism allows us to ignore their concerns regarding methane. It allows us to not be concerned with the lose of such a forest. The destruction of such a forest becomes only an unfortunate aesthetic issue.

Further there is the issue of profit, of capitalism. . . greed, what we pointed to at the beginning. To discount such science does allow us as a nation to thrive. To not have to be concerned with such research and scientific concerns allows us to focus on those things that simply bring a better return. To frack for natural gas and log trees just has much more concrete visible returns versus the returns of limiting methane or protecting distant forests.

Further, our businesses, our nation, our communities thrive in the harvesting of natural gas and the mining of minerals. Such allows for out nation, our communities, our families to continue. Likewise, science and research offer no alternative. They only warn us of long-term consequences. They provide us with no alternative method of survival much less growth.

There is something to the idea of nation, community, and family working towards common goals here. Coworkers, business partners, vendors, family are all tied together in these ventures. And science does challenge or even threatens all of that. It challenges that whole web of belief. In the regulation of methane and its protection of forests, science limits and does harm to our economic system. It does harm to our communities.

Again, science offers nothing of value. It simply limits and curtails our actions, and we are uncertain as to why. It says nothing regarding actual long-term goals such as the raising and providing for children. On such topics, science and researchers are mute. It regulates methane and denies us access to a forest. Nothing more. It does not calculate the actual cost of such.

So yes these actions, at least the elimination of methane regulation and the embrace of logging and mining in a large pristine forest is driven by the profit motive but let us be clear, this also entails thriving communities, personal achievement, and simply accomplishing life's dreams. To simply say profit driven is to abstract away from the benefits of and reason for profit. And such activities, as logging, mining, oil drilling have been engaged in for a long time. All have histories and all have thrived in the US. They are largely what put us on the map.

So, some sense can be made of such beliefs, yes?

Which leaves us with the deportation of a very sick young woman who can only get treatment in the US. Her removal does not build community, nor provide us with personal achievement. There is no profit to be lost. So what value is there in such an action? She could be a cost. She could be taking a bed from an American child. She in fact is not as she is participating in clinical trials involving an extremely rare disease. The researchers have covered all of her cost so as to have her available for the research. Without her, this research could not be done. All is paid for.

Regardless, the perception is there. A deathly ill child from from Guatemala, brought to America to save her. Why do we have to rescue deathly ill children from elsewhere? There are deathly ill children right here in the US. True.

Regardless, are we really ready to deport her to her likely death? Is this who we have become? So we have some glimpse of this, but not the depth of it. Are we ready to kill for this? Or did we just not realize the consequent of removal? Maybe we just did not think this through?

Is it possible that this is in fact a message to the scientists and researchers, and those who support such,"Screw your research. We do not need to go out and cure each and every rare illness out there. We can't and we won't." Is that what is being said here?

In short, the removal and possible death is not only another removal of an immigrant, but it is also a repudiation of science. It is basically saying,"We do not care. We do not really need this."

Science, reason, the deep state. . . big government. All are not needed. With their fear and worries regarding methane and their desire to preserve every forests and rescue every sick child, they destroy our communities, our way of life, who we are and what we do. And all of it is at the cost of the American people. In the process of regulating methane, and preserving trees, we lose our jobs, our livelihoods, and squander our fortune, our wealth. Perhaps it is from sentiments such as these that we arrive at a willingness to allow a young woman to die? That is where I arrive.

Anyway, all of this from a few words, a sentence, perhaps two, and an application of the principle of charity. Perhaps more an abuse of that principle, but with it, we still arrive here. We arrive at the conclusion that the actions we are trying to understand originate from a sense of community, a feeling of betrayal by government, and science. There is a frustration regarding what is regulated, what is put off limits, and what we are attempting to achieve. All of which comes at a cost to us. And that costs until now has been ignored. And for what? What is the goal? In short, why do we need regulation, the preservation of forests, and cure all diseases, if the last can even be done? It all defies common sense.

One Take on the President's July 8th Speech on the Environment. . .

The Yonkers Power Plant, a work in progress again. 

Earlier this month, on Monday, July 8^th, the President offered up a speech highlighting his administration's environmental policy. What follows is a look at some of the key themes and the policies highlighted in that speech.

The President started with two basic points, two basic goals of his administration:

The first is to ensure that America has the cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet. And number two - that you can achieve these while growing the economy. He stressed that the two are not mutually exclusive as previous administrations have suggested.

What followed in the speech was a detailing of policies his administration has embraced to achieve and maintain clean air and clean water. Likewise he touched upon his administration's management of public lands, the cleanup of super-fund sites, forestry, and the embrace of innovation and new technologies.

So let's run through some of this list, some of the policies he has embraced. We will start with the clean air and the water he emphasized and then following the speech also comment on the clean up of Superfund and brownfield sites, and the management of public lands. I will then explore some areas that were not touched upon in the speech, but that do demand some attention.

He begins with water, asserting that “today, the United States is ranked — listen to this — number one in the world for access to clean drinking water — ranked number one in the world.” That is obviously not quite true. If you go to The Global Open Data Index, they have collected the data from governments across the globe and they arrive at the conclusion that we get an 85% and are tied for second place along with seven other countries. Exaggeration is a common theme in this speech, which really should not be a surprise. And regardless, 85% and being tied for second is pretty good for a country that entails the better part of a continent and 330+ million people. I guess the point is that at 85% there is room for improvement.

Another statistic that he discusses early on is the cost of electricity. This highlights his concern for both a good economy and environment, and his assertion that they are not mutually exclusive. He points out that the price of electricity is far lower today in the US both historically and in comparison to other countries.

“Other countries -- their pricing on electricity is so high, not even to be affordable. At our level, we are doing numbers that nobody has seen before. Nobody believes what we're doing and what we're producing electricity and other things for. Punishing Americans is never the right way to produce a better environment or a better economy.”

Again, if you do a quick search on the web you realize we are not the cheapest. China and India are both at 8 cents per kilowatt hour, Canada and Mexico are both at 10 cents. The US is at 12 cents. Still relatively cheap as compared to Denmark, Germany and Spain which are somewhere between 30 and 40 cents per kilowatt hour. These number were courtesy of OVO Energy and there are other sources. The point is that we are being provided with information regarding clean water and electricity that is less than true. If you truly value clean air, clean water and the cost of electricity, I would have to believe we would want an accurate view of where we stand regarding them. It simply goes to credibility.

The same situation regarding air pollution. The President asserted at one point that “air pollution -- particulate matter -- is six times lower here than the global average.” I searched various databases and we like most industrial nations have improved the situation since 1970. Things have improved. We are again not the best. We are pulling B's, maybe even B+'s.

The concerning thing regarding these instances is that this is the President of the United States making these claims at the beginning of a speech detailing his administration's accomplishments regarding the environment. They basically introduce and frame the topics covered in the speech, and they are simply not true. Yet, many people will simply take them as true, as fact, because the President made the claims. One could innocently believe that the President would not lie or make up things in a major speech.

Regardless, we do know just from their introduction, true or false, that the President believes that the two most important pieces of our environmental policy involve the quality of our air and our water. Further, he believes that these two must not be achieved at the cost of the economy. Not only that but he believes that good environmental policy and good economic policy are not antithetical, that they are not mutually exclusive. Of course the flaws of what he initially presented haunt us here. Upon what are we to judge his claims regarding the relationship of the economy and the environment?

Let us stop beating a dead horse and grant that he has simply exaggerated the claims. If we do not grant this, then we might as well stop here and call it a day – why consider a speech that is based upon false premises, aside from it being offered by the President of the US. Let us grant that though we are not the best in any of these categories, the numbers regarding the environment of the US and likewise the pricing of our electricity are satisfactory. All indicate that we are more than in the game and that improvements have been made, and that there is more work to be done.

Now before going into the area and policies he wants to highlight, let me point to another area of interest – Global Warming. I bring it up because he does. He does not name it but he does allude to it. The term is not referenced anywhere in the speech. Yet in his introductory comments regarding air pollution he points out that “ Since 2000, our nation's energy-related carbon emissions have declined more than any other country on Earth. Think of that. Emissions are projected to drop in 2019 and 2020. “

He continues “Every single one of the signatories to the Paris Climate Accord lags behind America in overall emissions reductions. Who would think that is possible? For this reason, in my first year in office, I withdrew the United States from the unfair, ineffective, and very, very expensive Paris Climate Accord. Thank you.”

The President told us above that the core of his environmental policy was clean air and water. That and making sure that policies regarding these do not harm the economy. There was no reference to global warming yet it is largely in the debate and science of global warming that carbon emissions are relevant. I am not sure why he introduced this data point. His speech ignores global warming. Why bring up a data point regarding that which you do not believe exists and that you are not talking about?

Perhaps he was saying in short that we have done enough? Even without trying, we have exceeded all others, so we left the Paris Climate Accord, Perhaps that was his point? Onto the next subject.

He returns to his theme of the balance or the dance of the environment and the economy. He talks of his new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, (the USMCA). He highlights that there is a provision in that agreement regarding clean up of plastic waste in the oceans. He talks of having “refocused the EPA back on its core mission, and, last year, the agency completed more Superfund hazardous waste clean-ups than any year of the previous administrations and set records in almost every year.” He references Super-fund clean ups in Michigan and Missouri.

He continues on this theme mentioning that “we've also directed $65 million in brownfield grants to clean up even more contaminated sites in 149 American communities. Think of that -- the vast majority home to lower-income citizens.” What is that actually saying though when you consider that the agency currently has 13,758 employees, versus the 17,359 employees it had during the first term of President Obama. The agency is now at, according to The Washington Post, the lowest number of employees since 1987. 

In short, it seems that the EPA is doing more with less people? That is a good thing, right? Perhaps. The question becomes, are the standards, which historically slowed the clean-up process down at the EPA, now being embraced at all? Can the EPA actually navigate the challenges of such cleanups done properly with the staff cuts they have embraced? Can we do what is required to insure that these lands and waterways are now clean or are we simply writing checks to now facilitate us building on, living in, and working on contaminated sites? Sites that continue to pollute our water? Meanwhile, in the speech he boasts that the vast majority of the sites they are cleaning up are in proximity to lower-income citizens. It is no doubt a good thing that these sites are being addressed, but it is an open question whether the methodology and the solution applied are sufficient. Only time will tell.

From Superfund and brownfield cleanups, which hopefully will improve the quality of our water the President goes to his signing America's Water Infrastructure Act. A law he describes as supporting American drinking water infrastructure and other critical projects. It is an infrastructure bill focusing on dams, levees, reservoirs, pretty much anything involving water. So this is a good thing. Supporting our infrastructure and our various water systems. The only thing to note is that this legislation is not his. This is not innovation. It is simply continuing the work of the US government. These bills have been passed routinely. He is continuing a tradition. Regardless, it is now signed law and it is a good thing.

He also points to a $100 Million piece of legislation that will protect the ecosystems of the Everglades. This legislation is vital to the inhabitants of southern Florida. It basically protects their source of drinking water. Further, it is a response to the red tide that is challenging much of Florida. Again these issues have challenged Florida for the past twenty years and this is a continuation of an ongoing project. He is again continuing the work initiated by earlier administrations, Republicans and Democrats. Again, in the end he has signed legislation giving sizable sums to Florida to deal with this issue and that is a good thing.

Another area that the President referenced in his speech several times is the clean up of the oceans. The removal of the thousands of tons of plastic bottles, containers, and the like that have found their way into the oceans, creating that island of plastic off the coast of Mexico and California. He passed a bill to specifically deal with this, plus also language can be found elsewhere, such as the new NAFTA agreement. His main contribution here, however, is that he is now requesting that his State Department bring this issue to the attention of countries that are engaged in these practices-dumping plastic into the oceans. (And it must be said that such behavior, the dumping of plastic into the ocean, seems like the final piece of an old George Carlin bit regarding the earth desiring plastic, sadly.) Regarding this administration, we finally find a use for diplomacy. Regarding the monies appropriated for the matter, however, it is again a renewal of existing funding.

Lastly there are the public lands. He did sign what he claims to be the largest public lands packages in a decade, designating 1.3 million acres as public lands. That is bigger than the state of Rhode Island. Which is pretty amazing! Of course then you have the executive orders that preceded this legislation. There is the the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, where the former was trimmed or reduced by roughly 1.1 million acres, roughly 85%. And the later, the Grand Staircase, lost 800,000 acres.

Add to this the 10 million acres being reallocated for mining in the Sagebrush focal areas. These 10 million acres of Federal and adjacent lands found in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming are famous for their Sagebrush Grouse, a bird. These areas distributed across these six states were deemed significant in protecting the Grouse and the sagebrush, basically the arid lands, the near deserts, founds in the American west. In some ways they represent the American west.

The Sagebrush focal areas were not touched upon in the President's speech. They do, however, challenge one of the central themes of his speech – that we can do both good business and protect the environment simultaneously. Remember that in the speech he asserts that the two, the economy or business, and environment are not mutually exclusive. It does not have to be an either or. Yet it seems here that his administration has chosen the economy over the environment, mining over the grouse.

And that is the classic conflict between the economy, doing business, and the environment. It seems to stare us in the face here. Now this President not surprisingly chose to go with business and ignore the environment. It would seem that this decision to open the lands to mining simply challenges his claim that no decision is required regarding business and the environment, that the two can be balanced.

Yet, if you go back to the original decision, when they reverse the Obama policy, which had protected the grouse, the claim was exactly that – no such protections were not needed. The claim, when they reversed the Obama policy, was that the Obama administration had over-reacted. The Trump administration, it was claimed, was protecting the grouse, the sagebrush and would also do the mining. In short, they had claimed they could do both, just as the President was asserting in this speech.

So we now have 10 million acres of arid lands available to be mined, the millions in profits that will result from this, plus the preservation of a species, and the preservation of a vast chunk of what is simply the American west. All of this was somehow supposedly balanced, allowing for all to survive and thrive. This seems like a major success for this President, and yet he chose not to introduce this victory into a speech focusing on exactly this point? This appears to be the case.

So where do we stand? In the end, this President is kind of maintaining the status quo? Maybe? He is claiming to be protecting America's air and water quality. He did in fact signed several pieces of legislation into law that do support, maintain and even improve parts of our infrastructure relating to water. So something is being done there.

Regarding air, however, aside from the claim that we have clean air, he did not really speak to it. He did not touch upon air quality. At best, perhaps, he pointed to an achievement that was achieved by those prior to him, involving carbon, which really is not relevant here.

Which leads me to point to things that were not in the speech. Things such as the Sagebrush focal areas. The massive wildfire that was burning in Alaska as he gave the speech was likewise not mentioned. The relationship of science and research to the stewardship of the environment was not introduced. This as he relocates several hundred USDA scientists from Washington to St Louis, which may cost the organization half its research staff.

Nor was there any discussion of the "Joshua Principle", which had been embraced by Scott Pruitt at the EPA regarding scientists being given a seat at the table regarding policy. Basically allowing local community members and businesses to have a say in regulatory decisions, but not scientists and researchers. Likewise, there is the elimination of “secret science” at the EPA. Basically, this is the process arrived at by the EPA to do peer reviewed science and research required for new chemical compounds, but also respect the patent holder. The results are not publicly available - secret science. The administration is not happy with this process in light of transparency. An alternative, however, has not been found but I do hope that we are not going to simply take the word of the manufacturer going forward.

In short, regulation was not touched upon in the speech. Nor did the President reference any of his executive orders, which there have been several. He did not reference his executive order instructing the EPA, and the NHTSA to review the emission standards put in place by the Obama Administration. Obama had put in place standards that would further reduce carbon emissions and improve gas mileage going forward, but they have now been basically eliminated.

Nor did the President reference his executive order allowing coal burning power plants to continue to carry on without investment in scrubbing technologies. These technologies would make them far cleaner, removing not only carbon but also sulfur from our air. Carbon is the leading cause of global warming, and sulfur dioxide is the responsible for both acid rain and various respiratory ailments. Both of these executive orders will, if implemented, have an impact on air quality. Nothing was said regarding either. 

Add to these the initiative to eliminate EPA regulations regarding mercury emissions at coal plants. Likewise the modification of the Affordable Clean Energy rules, again at the EPA, and this time involving fine particulate matter. Again mostly resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, and associated with respiratory ailments, heart attacks and strokes. Regarding this last one, they question the mathematical models used by the Obama administration that arrive at roughly 1400 lives cost by such pollution. This is another illustration of the administration disputing the role of science and in this instance the mathematical  models used to arrive at those numbers, and ultimately the regulatory regime implemented. 

So the speech was highly selective on what was introduced. Global warming was not discussed. The achievements, the successes, were basically involving infrastructure funding bills that involved ongoing projects and initiatives initiated by prior administrations. Basically we celebrated the writing of checks to states, and local governments for infrastructure improvements.

The speech ignored the fact that though this administration has opened up massive tracts of public lands it likewise closed and eliminated far more. In light of such emissions, the speech's goal of illustrating how this administration has found a way to have both a good economy and environment was not lived up to.  Rather, the President chose to simply ignore such topics.

This choice to ignore certain topics is seen even more so as the speech did not touch at all on the regulatory aspects of the environment. Considering the record of this administration regarding environmental regulation, it simply would have been difficult if not impossible to assert that the President is balancing the economy and environment. His administration regarding environmental regulation simply favors business over the environment. There has been no balance regarding the two in regard to regulation. It is in fact an either or and in fact he has chosen the economy. He has chosen business.

Lastly, the President did not touch at all on his attitude and beliefs regarding science and environmental policy. And he does have some interesting views regarding science and its relation to policy. His administration's views regarding scientific research and those who do it are different from their predecessors. They seem not to trust science. They seem to not want to consider it in relation to policy. We see this in relation to global warming, and we see it in numerous instances above. If anything, the speech was further evidence of this attitude or position.

It has taken me two weeks to wrap my head around the various aspects of the speech and these policies. I was actually encouraged by somethings. In general, however, the speech fails to accurately represent this administration's environmental policy. Further, the speech does not accurately represent the intent or the ability of this administration to balance the economic and the environmental spheres. I doubt this administration has any such intention.