"Green Book" Won Best Picture - Now The Whiners, Woke-ites & Wannabes Need To Get A Life

In the wake of the 'Best Picture' win by Green Book,  which film we'd seen several months ago, we celebrated heartily Sunday night.  However, we could scarcely believe all the snark, moaning and whining by the losers (and a bevy of critics, and would be critics) in the aftermath.  It almost seemed like every loser or  misfit with a grudge had crawled out of the woodwork to direct twitter fire or mount attack articles at the award.  Even Spike Lee who'd already received his first Oscar (for best adapted screenplay) "lost it" and compared the award to an NBA ref making a "bad call."  Whereupon Janice wondered what he'd been inhaling with that little vaping pipe at the Oscars.

In particular, it seems to be the film's racial tropes "have been around too long", and were more apropos to a period 50-60 years ago in the Jim Crow era? WTF!?  Hello! That is when the events on which the film is based took place! DOH!  So no, it doesn't need to be "woke" to that degree in today's hip parlance.  But still, wifey and I could not believe all the caterwauling that emerged after the big win, as if every little dingbat who believed he or she had skin in the Oscar's game had to toss in their two cents.  That included overpaid, art-obsessed critics like the LA Times'  Justin Chang who wrote the movie was an "insult to viewers' intelligence".

Janice could only shake her head in dismay and say: "Well, maybe to his rarefied intellect which resides somewhere between cloud nine and the elevated heights of art film genre!"  In other words, films that virtually no real, red-blooded human actually goes to see - say like the black and white silent flick, 'The Artist' - when the Academy really screwed the pooch on the Best Picture.

But 'Green Book'? No way! Delightfully entertaining and engrossing all the way, never mind it's a "buddy movie" and "road trip film" rolled into one. It is the dynamic that plays out between the two lead characters  (Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali as Don Shirley) and which we see transforms each one during their tour of the Deep South, when blacks had to go by the "Green Book" to determine where they could lay their heads at night, if traveling.

Some complainers, like the Shirley family  (Don's nephew Edwin Shirley III and brother Maurice)  insisted the film was "a symphony of lies"  because Don Shirley didn't actually go to musical venues to perform as the film portrays. So what? Ever heard of artistic license?  And while we're at it,  Spike Lee needs to take a chill pill after pitching a hissy fit (waving his arms in anger and trying to leave the Dolby theater)  when the last award was announced. Don't look now,  but Spike took his own liberties with the book 'BlacKkKlansman' by inserting a Jew (Adam Driver's character) into the script when no actual Jewish person was ever involved in the book's account.

As for the curmudgeon critics and other whiners and detractors  now hurling rotten tomatoes in the aftermath of the win, they need to get a grip, climb down from their sour grapes roosts,  rarefied arts perches and pay attention.  As Variety noted:

"When “Green Book” premiered at this year’s Toronto International Film Festival, the response to it was ecstatic. Audiences gave it rapturous ovations and voted it their favorite movie of the festival, and critics swooned. Many of us felt that “Green Book,” directed with grace and crack timing by Peter Farrelly (from a script he co-wrote with Nick Vallelonga and Brian Hayes Currie), was a crowd-pleaser in the best way — a feel-good movie, yes, but one built around a series of honest observations about what it showed you. The dialogue went ping without calling attention to itself (William Goldman, I think, would have approved), and you could use the movie in a master class for acting."

(Highlighted section from yours truly.)

Variety did go on to give some agreement with critics' top pet peeves in terms of the specific telling, i.e"

"That said, there’s no denying that the tropes that thread through “Green Book” have been around a long time. It’s a buddy movie. And a road movie. And a Hollywood liberal message movie, set in the days of Civil Rights and Jim Crow, in which a white guy and a black guy start off by taking the stuffing out of each other until they gradually get to be friends. “Green Book” has been compared to “Driving Miss Daisy” due to its racial theme (and hired-driver plot), but when I first saw it the movie it reminded me of, in a funny way, was “Rain Man,” another on-the-road two-hander that elevated formula to artistry."

To which I say, 'So what?'  Those of us who went to see it did so as ordinary, (hoi polloi) theater goers not artistes, or grads of Julliard  or Yale Drama School.   We weren't sitting  there with note pads in hands,   ticking off every imagined minor plot transgression or whether it fit our expectations of what a best picture caliber film ought to be - say like the farrago of pretentious rubbish from that  twerp Justin Chang, e.g.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-oscars-green-book-worst-best-picture-winner-20190224-story.html

So why the bitch fest now?  The same Variety piece offers, I think, one of the best insights, apart from all the side show hullaballoo that erupted which reminds me of the ancillary noise that accompanied Ron Howard's film 'A Beautiful Mind'.  (Trying to attack mathematician John Nash for not being "woke" enough. )  As if every little jealous meat head  who believes he has skin in the game - is compelled to comment or critique.  My biggest beef is with the imposition of so-called "wokeness" on a film portraying an era in which "woke" meant one had just awakened as his alarm went off. It had nada to do with some higher level of consciousness, or transcendent moral sensibility.

Variety again:

"Those who are woke claim, through their very wokeness, to have allegiance to one thing: the transcendent morality of their cause. "

Let's pause right there to call 'bullshit!'  In fact, there is no "transcendent" morality in any cause, or any code, including that of the RC Church.  Buddhist philosopher Alan Watts perhaps provided some of the best insights when in his book, 'The Wisdom Of Insecurity' - he quoted (p. 111) Emerson: "Your goodness must have an edge to it,  else there is none." 

In other words, there is never perfect, seamless or absolute goodness. Goodness has bounds and limits on account of humans' possessing a defective brain, which retains more ancient regions that compromise reflective thought. This means the person who strives to be absolutely good  or moral will be exposed sooner or later as a pretender and plaster saint, with feet of clay.   Anyone recall the holy roller televangelist, Jimmy Swaggart? 

Watts goes further than merely accepting the edge of goodness by noting (ibid.):

"For all the qualities which we admire or loathe in the world around us are reflections from within... "

In essence, we are beings already enfolded in a biological and neurological matrix replete with its own negative moral potentials. It is as impossible to escape from these limiting potentials as to escape one's own shadow. Hence, "goodness" exists not as some separate pinnacle or absolute standard of decency and moral perfection but a relative aspiration which we can only seek within the limits of our own understanding and conscience. 

 The achievable morality then - which is attainable within this limiting matrix -  can never be "transcendent" because no one can escape the material matrix. But given we are grounded in an imperfect world and universe this is as good as it gets, no pun intended. What was it philospher N. M. Wildiers wrote?  "An evolving world and a perfect world are two mutually exclusive propositions."

To which he might have added the corollary: "In an evolving world all aspirations to perfect or transcendent moral behavior are futile."

Thus, we can seek a functional moral individualism, imbued with relativism and provisionalism.  This moral individualism entails each person acting according to the dictates of his or her conscience - while grasping that conscience itself  may not be perfect- in terms of moral sensibility or moral knowledge.


Overlaid on this, however, we can invoke or appeal to provisional ethics such as described by Michael Shermer in his book, 'The Science of Good and Evil. Thus:

“In provisional ethics moral choices correspond to scientific facts in being provisionally right or wrong, where moral or immoral means confirmed to an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent. It remains provisional because, as in science, the evidence might change. “   

This is crucial to note, because once ethics -morality is tied to science, say evolutionary ethics, then the aspiration to moral absolutism (and transcendence) becomes redundant. So those who tie "wokeness" to the latter are operating on a false premise as well as wasting their time and energy.  

Let's go on to further insights on cultural wokeness in the context of the movie, Green Book:

"Yet woke culture, as practiced in America in 2018, also carries an undercurrent of competition. As in: How woke are you? Not as woke as me! I’ll see you one courageous, self-lacerating woke insight and raise you two! In this atmosphere of a never-ending contest of righteous one-upmanship fought out on Twitter, the middlebrow Hollywood liberal attitudes on display in “Green Book” can look like something from a vanished world of movies that pretend to liberate but really just pander. “Green Book” has been condemned, in certain circles, as if it were a racially stodgy and unenlightened embarrassment — the “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” of 2018 awards ."


This is absolutely true when one reads some of the vacuous, even ridiculous complaints and tweets based on this "wokeness" meme.  In effect, the Woke-ites have lost their marbles and are judging a film retelling 1950s-60s events with 1950s-60s characters using subjective current standards that are as irrelevant as they are unreal.  (Again, refer above to why moral transcendence is impossible and indeed, incoherent, because it implies humans can become literal angels).  In this nonsensical context , of course "woke" competition is possible given it embraces the delusions Alan Watts excoriates in another monograph, Does It Matter? Know what?  Both Janice and I revel in the "unenlightened embarrassment"  of  older flicks like 'Guess Who's Coming To Dinner', as well as 'Heat of the Night' and yes, 'Green Book'.  And if that means we grovel in "middlebrow Hollywood liberal attitude" so be it. At least we aren't duped into the delusionary twaddle  of moral "transcendence" or trying to be more "woke" than others!

Most spot on - and here's a redress for those snippy critics like Justin Chang:

"But really, what is the movie’s crime? It’s based on a true story, which it tells with considerable depth. It’s not trying to make a grand statement about race except for the idea that white people and black people, to the extent that their backgrounds and experiences separate them, should try to understand each other better. Sorry, but I must have missed the place where that became a reactionary message."

Again, in the mythological land of the latter day Woke-ites, this perception  of the reactionary message is totally possible. To the Woke-ites and their illusory standards it is natural to make the perfect the enemy of the good, or almost good. Never mind the latter more conforms to the Emerson ideal of goodness having an edge, the Woke-ites want no part of it. Oh no. Their goodness is transcendent and has no "edge". Hence, by extension, any characters in a movie about race relations (or the actors) must have no edge.  How dare that Viggo Mortensen utter the N-word in an impromptu interview despite having no malicious intent. He transgressed the Wokies'  first commandment! Thou shalt not ever, ever display human foibles....faux pas... or general fallibility!

How dare the producers, writers have this prejudiced white guy "saving" the black gay musician! Of course this is tommyrot and reveals how clueless these critics are. There is no "white savior" theme or message. Even the most rudimentary,  non-Mensan intellect ought to easily grasp (once aroused from the wokiness dopiness) that the  personal dynamic evident in their shared experiences is mutually transformative.  Both Don Shirley and  his white driver, Nick Vallelonga  are in the end changed - for the better- by virtue of their going through the Jim Crow south. Many critics who cried the loudest appeared to forget the scenes where Shirley is patiently teaching Nick how to write a proper love letter to his wife while on their road trip.  Or maybe they chose to ignore that because it didn't fit their prejudgment of the film. Who knows?

When all is said and done, and leaving out all the irrelevant controversies and side kerfuffles, Green Book is a great film - even if so many dunderheads don't appreciate it or like it. Possibly because they lost big in Vegas,  making reckless Oscar bets on Roma or Bohemian Rhapsody.  Well, cry me a river, do.  But now it's time to put on your big boy pants, suck it up and grow up already!

Look, if a Civil Rights icon like Rep. John Lewis - one of the Best Picture presenters - could advocate for 'Green Book' as he did, then it's past time for the whiners and Wokies to get a life and move on.

Swine -in-Chief's Attack On Mika Brzezinski Shows He Isn't Fit To Clean Porto -Potties

"And you remember this disgusting dude is the president of the United States, and you realize how much he is diminishing the presidency of the United States.  You realize what he is doing is not just acting for Donald Trump, he's acting for all of us.  And he is embarrassing. He is shameful. He is disgusting. 

And about Republicans, I'm really tired of hearing words like 'I'm disappointed',  and 'I wish he wouldn't do it.'  It's time that somebody called him up and said 'Look, you crazy, seventy year old man-baby, stop it! You are now the President of the United States, the Commander-in -Chief. and you need to stop acting like a mean girl because we just won't take it."

CNN commentator Ana Navarro on Trump's tweet attack on Mika Brzezinski

See the rant here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhhXtCkt9CE

"It's a sad day when the president spends his time bullying, lying and spewing petty personal attacks instead of doing is job". - MSNBC official statement


So now the pretender to the presidency who acts like the thug he is, has so little incentive to occupy his time and febrile brain he has to resort to a craven personal attack on a morning talk show host, in this case Mika Brzezinski. I happened to have been watching Morning Joe just before the twisted little maggot at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue unleashed his unseemly rants in tweets (which I won't repeat here) confirming this asshole isn't fit to clean porto-potties in NYC,  far less hold the highest office in the land. He's a damned disgrace, and an embarrassment to us all, as well as the laughing stock overseas, e.g. these German cartoons:

Earlier I'd been watching as Joe Scarborough and Mika did a  nice piece on Politico's story of how Rex Tillerson blew up at a WH aide (now known to be Kushner). And why not? A wizened former CEO of a major company forced to take shit from some 38-year old punk who doesn't know diddly? I'd be jacked up too.  As Joe and Mika both noted, it shed more light on how the Trump bunch just hung Tillerson out to dry without a pot to piss in: no staff, no money for staff, conflicts erupting all the while and no resources to deal with them .... And Tillerson expected to take marching orders from a wet behind the ears, inexperienced imp. 

But Trump's unloading on Mika Brzezinski is par for the course of a glorified real estate swindler who never learned the finer elements of behavior or approached real success on his own. As Mika and Joe put it, "He's jealous of Jeff Bezos' success because he didn't have daddy's money to buy his way in. He got to the top by his own smarts and  acumen to the point he could even produce his own movies and buy his own newspaper - the Washington Post."  So instead of handling the putdown like a man, the despicable little weasel blew a gasket and unleashed vicious tweets - dog whistles to his followers.

Let's also note this is part of Trump's recently renewed crusade against the established media, railing against its "fake news" mandate while everyone with a brain knows it's Trump who's the fake. Hell, he even has to resort to putting fake TIME covers of himself on his assorted properties' walls. How pathetic.  In the case of Trump, as numerous leaks have revealed, we behold a guy unable to settle into the role demanded by the job of President. Many wonder if he even possesses the mental ability to govern - or merely disrupt like a mentally regressed ignoramus.

But not his rube PR puppet, Sara "Huckleberry" Sanders,  who said in the wake:  "this is a president who fights with fire and will not be bullied by liberal media". 

Seriously?  What "fire"? All Ms. Brzezinski did was criticize Trump as all presidents have been criticized from the year dot. What will the simpleton nutcase do next, go after Ana Navarro for her takedown of his actions? Is he that thin-skinned? Then he shouldn't be in the Oval Office, period. "If you can't take the heat" and all that.

"Huckleberry" then went on to double down and defend her asswipe master, saying "when he's attacked he strikes back".  But see, he wasn't "attacked". He was merely criticized as every other President has been since George Washington. It comes with the job and maybe if it's too much for Trump to handle he needs to resign and go back to being a two- bit, New York real estate swindler.

Even Trump's wife, Melania, who claimed she wanted to "campaign against cyber bullying" has been reduced to a shameless hypocrite by this latest incident. When asked about it she tweeted: "When he gets attacked he will punch back 10 time harder", taking a page from Sara Huckleberry's playbook of nonsense, conflating justifiable criticism with an "attack".

But this latest incident may be a new low in disclosing how vile and unpresidential this warped, orange-skinned turd is. Hitherto, I and many others had pegged the nadir as his meeting with Angela Merkel.  He sat next to her like a goddamned spoiled brat,  pouting, like he just had his sippy cup taken away,  and refused to even shake her hand! The epitome of classlessness, and gauche behavior. Commenting on this exhibition, NY Times' Richard Cohen wrote:

"When Donald Trump met Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany earlier this month, he put on one of his most truculent and ignorant performances."

Meanwhile, another commenter (on a NY Times forum)  also wrote:

"Trump's behavior with Merkel was not only disgraceful, it showed the rest of the world what a shallow, ignorant, unprepared, know-nothing he really is. Every American, and especially every Republican who voted for this man, ought to be ashamed and embarrassed. The GOP has besmirched the presidency, harmed our national security and soiled our country's international reputation"

But let's not kid ourselves, this thug in the guise of a president has been pegged accurately early and often, from the time he soiled the Oval Office on January 20th.  Some earlier spot on remarks:

"Trump's own instincts and inclinations (are responsible). A thirst for attention that leads to hyperactivity. He needs to dominate every news cycle which feeds a compulsive tweet habit. It has placed him almost continuously at the center of the national conversation and not always to his benefit".  - Charles Krauthammer (WaPo,  'What Happened to the Honeymoon?, Jan. 12)

"Trump simply can’t resist playground pushback. His tweets gave Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes screed priceless publicity. His mocking Arnold Schwarzenegger for bad “Apprentice” ratings — compared with “the ratings machine, DJT” — made Trump look small and Arnold (almost) sympathetic." Charles Krauthammer ibid.

"Since winning the election, Trump has not moderated his behavior. He still behaves like a brat ..."  - Richard Cohen, WaPo

"Let’s not mumble or whisper about the central issue facing our country: What is this democratic nation to do when the man serving as president of the United States plainly has no business being president of the United States? The Michael Flynn fiasco was the entirely predictable product of the indiscipline, deceit, incompetence and moral indifference that characterize Donald Trump’s approach to leadership. "  E.J. Dionne, The Washington Post, 'Admit It: Trump Is Unfit To Serve'

"Our boy president has surrounded himself by a team that tells him his coat is beautiful - but he's not wearing one. Let's recognize the heartbreak in this ...that we might be faced with a President who is not up to the task of the office he ran for and what do we do with that?" Fmr. Rep. David Jolly (R-FLA)

"President Trump’s mental state is like a train that long ago left freewheeling and iconoclastic, has raced through indulgent, chaotic and unnerving, and is now careening past unhinged, unmoored and unglued." - David Brooks, NY Times  Feb. 17

This deranged imbecile has tried - with outside handlers- to act like he's in command of his senses, but it can't be sustained. Like a small, thin-skinned child somebody's words (often women's)  eventually get to this brash degenerate and he's compelled to react. While diehard Trumpsters may love this sort of reactionary behavior, it doesn't comport with strength especially in a President. What it shows is that any twerp, misfit, or non-political person (without political power) can get under the big man's skin and make him freak out.

In other words, it shows he is hostage to any insult that comes down the pike and from any direction. Whereas, as philosopher Alan Watts notes in his book 'Does It Matter?', the truly strong personality is able to rest content in its own fortress of confidence and doesn't need to react to every slight perceived or misperceived. This person- personality, has enough mental and psychological ballast to contain and blunt pure emotional response. But....a personality arrested at the infantile or anal stage (as Hornstein notes) lacks the resources for resilient impulse control.

Not to be too blunt, but Trump would be better suited  being a cage match brawler - or inflated, self important, chiseling deal maker - than President of the U.S.    Recall the Donald has never really worked at a real job outside of owning his family branding business (who could order anyone to do his bidding) and being a NY real estate weasel who used bankruptcy (of multiple casinos) to make more $$$.   Even in his family biz Ivanka, Jared, Donald Jr. and the others had to keep him occupied with ogling Miss Universe contestants so he didn't get his grubby little mitts in too many family pots and muck them up. They knew then he couldn't be entrusted to do serious work, and yet they let his play acting mock campaign morph into the real thing and then somehow get elected (with the likely help of the Russkies.)

Hell, five days into his presidency the fruits of his massive incompetence were exposed for all to see.  He  even bawled that the job had  turned out to be too much for him to deal with. Too many details, too much stuff to master for an extensive government bureaucracy.  Hence, his penchant for becoming a cable TV and tweet addict. See e.g.

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-trump-stunned-to-learn-presidency-is-an-actual-j-1792215349

But we don't really need outside quotes to peg Trump to what he is: a basic criminal with reptilian cunning who used his money and lying capacity along with collusion with external forces to get catapulted into an office for which he's totally unqualified.  Who could forget the campaign boast:

I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and not lose any voters" - Donald Trump in a 2016 campaign brag.

See:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTACH1eVIaA

Let's also not forget this common thug's own enticement of violent behavior at his rallies, where he actually encouraged Trumpies to punch out protestors, and even go after the media.  So no we can't be surprised there's a thug now occupying the presidency who in many ways is no better than Osama bin Laden or an ISIS thug. The only difference is he's Caucasian and had money enough to fool adequate voters in 3 states to win the electoral vote.

As long as Trump is in office there will be no peace or civility in this country, no end to the polarization.  As several Repubs tweeted in response yesterday, this outburst "demeans the office and doesn't help the national dialogue". In fact it sets it back light years. Certainly, progressives will now be more hardened than ever against this ambulatory turd.  The Denver Post's Chuck Plunkett's words from his editorial of February 5 should remain emblazoned in all citizens' minds as they ponder the latest Trump twitter brain expulsion:

"In whatever spider hole in hell they've placed bin Laden, along with all the other petty tyrants of history, all of them must now be laughing. For in the days following 9/11 we grew to despise a thug terrorist who wished to destroy what it meant to be an American. Now, in the days after Inauguration Day, 2017, we find ourselves led by a thug president bent on finishing the job."  - Chuck Plunkett, Editor of The Denver Post, Feb. 5, p. 1D

Don't be surprised by any more antics or venom issuing from President Thug. Just be aware we have a common thug in the Oval office and no amount of gentle pressure or even shame will get him to change to become a decent, self-respecting human, far less a real President with any degree of reserve or dignity. In other words one worthy of respect as opposed to opprobrium and revulsion. What we can do, all who want a return to a nation they can respect, is make sure his ass is hurled out once and for all come November, 2020.

Fool us once, shame on the deceitful thug. Fool us again......well you know the rest!

See also Joe and Mika's  Washington Post opinion column titled, “Donald Trump is not Well.”

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/73742/just-say-it-donald-trump-is-mad
And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/pierre-tristam/73746/when-a-president-s-tweets-ape-the-squeals-of-a-swine

AND:

• The must-see video of 'Trump' having tantrum at children's school goes viral

A Radical Idea: No National Anthem At Most Sports Events

It was Buddhist Philosopher Alan Watts in his 'Wisdom Of Insecurity', who questioned the role of conditioned behavior and responses especially in advanced Western societies like the U.S. Watts contended that if behaviors are simply adopted and practiced without reflection  they easily become habituated and mechanical, especially if tied to values like national pride. There is then the potential they can become vehicles for propaganda.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current brouhaha over the national anthem as sports events - namely pro football- and players using it as a means to protest. At the same time, their exercise of their 1st amendment rights has triggered a ferocious backlash in some quarters, namely among militarists, nativist nationalists, American exceptionalists and others who place the value of the flag itself over the rights it is intended to represent.

This additional polarization is the last thing this nation needs given it is already up to its eyeballs in religious, political, racial and cultural polarization. No one appears to recall the famous words "united we stand, divided we fall."  So that our own internal divisions may be out ultimate security threat.

One letter appearing in The Denver Post yesterday had this to say about the issue of the national anthem at sports events, and caused me to wonder whether in fact it isn't time to drop it for most sports The key part - from James Aubrey of Denver - reads as follows:

"The deep source of my disappointment is the use of the national anthem to stir up an audience before a game of sport that doesn't have anything to do with national politics. 'The Star Spangled Banner' is appropriate enough at the Olympics, which immediately pits national teams against one another - but other athletic contests should be about athleticism, not patriotism. I'd like to see more separation between sport and state."

I believe he has made a sound point. This is apart from the fact most baseball and football fans don't really sing it anyway, they just mechanically mouth some of the words.  The fans already buying brats and beer at the concession stands don't even bother with that, they're more concerned with getting their snacks. And the ones in the rest room are more invested in voiding their bladders. "Anthem, what anthem, I gotta piss!" Let's not even get into the fact the song is inherently difficult to sing (few singers do it properly)  as pointed out recently by Prof. James McWhorter on 'AM Joy'. As he noted:

"As for the Star Spangled Banner, I don't care what anyone says, most people have not liked that song very much. It's difficult to sing and in a style that's frankly outdated  And all of a sudden it becomes this totem of being a moral American human being. when one poor man makes a statement about the most important racial issue of our time."

 MSNBC host Joy Reid observed, "it was written after the War of 1812 and has nothing to do with the founding of the country"

In other nations, say like Germany Austria and the UK, you seldom hear any anthems played at soccer matches or before a test cricket match. It just isn't done, it is uniquely American  - but one wonders why. It appears that over time (and faded memory)  it just became a habit, and is now  unthinkingly accepted as a natural part of a sports event.

You don't hear it before other events like the Academy Awards, so why baseball or football games?  Historically speaking, the first documented playing of the 'Star Spangled Banner' at a sporting event dates back to 1862.  But one is led to ask,  as Alan Watts might: At what specific event did it first become part of the national sporting fabric, such that it is now mechanically repeated each time?

Well, that appears to be the first game of the 1918 World Series, between the Boston Red Sox and the Chicago Cubs (the Cubbies now nearly 100 years later contending for another Series' berth).  The time, recall, was near the end of World War I which had already been beset with propaganda thanks to Edward Bernays. 

Bernays  began his career in Woodrow Wilson's Committee on Public Information. The objective was to drumbeat millions of recalcitrants into seeing the need for War. War to 'make the world safe for democracy' - in the words forged by Bernays first PR hacks. Later, much later - PR firms and sales-marketing departments would use the CPI as a template for their own efforts to mold the American mass mind.

Of course, Bernays left much more of a foundation for manipulative deceit than merely the CPI. For example, in 1923 he published what became the official manifesto of all future public relations 'Crystallizing Public Opinion'. As the title implies, the basic goal was to drumbeat the maximum number of 'the masses' into a homogeneous and consistent consent. But do it without their awareness. The key was to frame the content in such a way the person would believe it to be 'common sense', or 'patriotism' to accept it.

In this vein, the playing of a "national anthem" at the nation's premier sporting event, fit the role nicely. A stirring song played by a band in the 7th inning, fed by sport fans' enthusiasm and swelling pride translated to fervor for World War I patriotism. What's not for a respectable warmonger to like?  Besides, the fans loved it! They sang along with gusto, and even the players stood at attention.  Observing carefully the reactions, Bosox owner Harry Frazee decided to move the pomp and pageantry to the pre-game by the time the Series switched to Boston. The 'die' had been cast.

Having beheld such a captive audience entranced by the anthem and the 'red, white and blue' it was but a small step to keep on doing it, repeating it including for other sports venues. No surprise it was augmented - literally - with the advent of World War II and loudspeakers at stadiums. In the words of Mark Clague, an expert on the 'Star Spangled Banner' at the University of Michigan:

"The ritual of the national anthem became part of the war effort on the home front and said that sport is committed to all things American. It defines sports as American."

In other words, it's good propaganda and we already know propaganda guts nuanced response in favor of engrained, single dimension reactions and beliefs. In other words, it's the ideal vehicle for the control and manipulation of the mass mind and its emotions.  Indeed, Bernays' definitive work was  'Propaganda' - whose principles were to be later adopted wholesale by Goebbels and Reifenstahl. It was in this book that the master betrayed his intent to control the minds of the masses:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country."

And here we see for the first time the term 'invisible government', which Bernays equates to 'the true ruling power of the country. Seen in this light, the anthem is a totem for propaganda and control of the mass mind. It is such that for those affected it literally eviscerates the power of reason and sober discrimination as it upends all the principles inherent in our constitution. As an example, consider this twaddle written by another letter write also on the same topic as the earlier one in The Post:

"I encourage Brandon Marshall to take a walk through Fort Logan cemetery where white tombstones stand for what they believed. They knew that when you no longer have a flag or an anthem you no longer have a country."

But, in truth, a piece of fabric - even colored red, white and blue - and a song (one written near the end of the War of 1812) absolutely do not make a country. Rather its people make a country and their conscious articulation of their rights, as enshrined in their Constitution. Because it is that abstract  document which defines the unique nature of the country and the extent of the identity via liberties it grants to its people.

Those who fail to see that, as the letter writer above, are propagandized and likely habituated to only react in a certain fixed way. They are the ones who have spawned much of the outcry at the new protests using the anthem - and with it more polarization. Since we can't expect them to change it is why we need to cease the anthem for our sporting events. As one commentator in TIME recently put it (Sept. 26, p. 18):

"If fans are going to react so strongly to someone kneeling during the anthem - as if that somehow signals a blow to America itself - it's time to re-evaluate how patriotic the gesture really is."

Alan Watts himself would argue such over-reacting people are substituting the fabric for the country, the symbol for reality. They are taking an artificial entity and inflating it to reality in the same way a mindless person in a restaurant might treat the image of a juicy steak on a menu as the real meat- cut it out and eat it (Another example Watts gives of "mistaking the map for the territory")

We can retain the anthem for the Olympics (sung after each of our wins, like in swimming or women's gymnastics) or for military and government convocations, events, displays. But we ought to ditch it for all other sporting events, lest the propagandists end up having the last laugh and converting the rest of us into semi-conscious automatons.

Don't Get Suckered By the Happiness Racket!

WHY is it that happiness is so elusive and ephemeral? Why is it the least accessible attitude or emotion, say compared with anger, excitement and embarrassment?  A clue lies in the Declaration of Independence wherein the framers were wise enough to grant citizens the pursuit of happiness, but not the thing itself. They knew it would be folly to mislead later generations into believing happiness was a commodity to be granted when it was nothing of the sort.

Wiser philosophers, including the Buddhist Alan Watts and others, have exposed how even the pursuit of happiness is useless unless one can somehow form an authentic persona. The real problem was first unearthed by Watts in his masterpiece, ‘The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are’, on pointing out that from the time most of us are tots we’re saddled with false egos, and false personas in order to fit more easily into a fucked up world. The end result is that on account of this process of maladjustment we end up fucked up and can’t accommodate to any prolonged period devoid of our little pet toys, devices, crutches or stimulants.  "Happiness" then is automatically tied to the never-ending consumption of such piffle or the consumption of simulated emotions akin to love - given a false persona is incapable of experiencing the real thing.


As Watts observes (p. 12):

“The lowdown on life is that our normal sensation of self is a hoax, or at best a temporary role that we are playing – or have been conned into playing – with our own tacit consent, just as every hypnotized person is basically willing to be hypnotized.”

He adds most tellingly (ibid.):

“The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent and isolated ego.”

Watts elaborates the dynamic of societal false self tomfoolery later, noting (p. 70):

“The very society from which the individual is inseparable, is using its whole irresistible force to persuade the individual he is indeed separate! Society as we know it is therefore playing a game with self-contradictory rules. Just because we do not exist apart from the community the community is able to convince us that we do- that each one of us is an independent source of action with a mind of its own. The more successfully the community implants this feeling, the more trouble it has in getting the individual to cooperate.”

He goes on to observe that society has “pulled this trick on every child from earliest infancy” and the child – because it lacks the power of reason at an early age – is unable to resist the social indoctrination.As a result of this indoctrination, of course, the seeds of toxic societal conditions are born and sustained. The unemployed beat up on themselves ceaselessly for not being “good enough” to support their families or get any kind of a decent job. Since the society has conditioned them to believe they alone are to blame for their situation, they willingly accept the onus as opposed to placing it on a dysfunctional society that gives all its best rewards to speculators.

Children in school may also beat up on themselves for failing a standardized test, despite the fact such tests for their own sake have nothing to do with genuine education and are in fact detrimental to real education (as Jiddu Krishnamurti has noted)

More generally, anyone who aspires to the pinnacle of his or her trade, profession or artistic talent and somehow falls short is condemned to believe he or she is a "loser". If one has not achieved the "mountain top" as it were, then it was all for naught. Via such an irrational narrative and other ways (see 'messages' below)  our own dysfunctional society sets us up to be deprived of even the pursuit of happiness - because it is itself incapable of recognizing the necessary and sufficient condition to attain it.

Thus, people – too many – have been bamboozled into thinking, believing they’re lonely, isolated centers of being. Worse, this superficial façade  is accepted as the real self – when it is  actually a false  one, a pretender. It is an artifact created, as Watts notes, to accommodate our laws, conventions and social institutions so that “we cannot experience selfhood except as something superficial in the scheme of the universe.’

The inherent problem is that a self constrained and operating under these conditions cannot experience anything like "happiness". This latter then becomes more of  cruel, macabre joke- a perverted "carrot" to be dangled at the end of the proverbial string to enforce compliance or delusion.

The irony of it all? While we are told it cannot be "for sale". the actual fact is that in our screwed up false society that's the only way it can be on offer - to artificial, false beings.  No better illustration of this has been found than in William Davies   “The Happiness Industry: How the Government and Big Business Sold Us Well-Being” 

Which describes how happiness has become a major preoccupation and commodity to be peddled by the powerful with corporations, politicians and their auxiliary therapeutic industry seeing concrete financial benefits to promoting this happiness facsimile among workers, voters, and ordinary citizens.

The message to workers: Think happy thoughts even if your job is pure  drudgery, i.e. merely working on an assembly line or flipping burgers

The message to voters: Don't demand or expect  'the world' on a plate when you vote, only what can be practically delivered by our bribery system

The message to citizens: Cease thinking or believing  in negative distractions like conspiracies or powerful networks arrayed against your interests. These will only lead to misery!

By resolutely imbibing these messages we cease to be authentic beings in our own right, but instead appendages to the false state or culture wherein the fake happiness is esteemed as a virtue that transcends all our divisions of culture and creed. The ultimate capitalist prize if you will. How so?

Well. because the "self- help" pabulum can then be peddled as the solution! This meshes perfectly with the Neoliberal market meme that the fake happiness is an "individual matter"  and hence, the larger market society can wash its hands of any individual responsibility. Never mind the society itself is toxic, as Watts points out, and seeks to pander the false self credo at every turn.

But see, the rise of self-help during an economic depression or recession is not new, and neither is pushing people to anti-depressants if they can't cope - instead of digging into the underlying societal toxicity. For example, not having a genuine universal health care system in place, as opposed to a pseudo-system based on for profit insurance companies. (Note to all: "Obamacare" is NOT a true socialized medical insurance program. It is actually a revamp of a program Nixon first advocated with the insurance axis involved. Thus, it is a REPUBLICAN health care program recycled!)

A genuine universal health care program or single payer program would more resemble what we now have for Medicare, so that program would be "Medicare for all".  Instead of people having to be shocked with sudden rate rises, denied coverage or going into bankruptcy over a medical issue (sure to make anyone unhappy!)  their essential needs would be taken care of, excepting dental and eye ware - as the case with Medicare. As for being "too expensive" - not at all! Merely redirect the 2.4% of 4.9% of GDP now going to the military and it's paid for.

In line with the above, it is clear austerity measures are also going to make many people unhappy, even miserable. Anything that undercuts a citizen's ability to make it or survive will engender dissatisfaction and mental stress. Even if defining happiness may be elusive, we know certain things can create unhappiness!   For instance, In their analysis of how recessions affect public health, David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu demonstrated the precise ways in which austerity policies lead to deteriorating mental and physical health, and unnecessary deaths. They also indicated alternatives whereby recessions can be an opportunity for improvements in public health. Which route is chosen is ultimately a societal question, determined by whether the society believes citizens are all "on their own" or part of a larger whole wherein localized pain, grievance or dysfunction compromises the whole

Sadly the entire Neoliberal market system, based on the Pareto distribution and economics, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/modern-economics-its-evil-basis-pareto.html

is such that citizens are only regarded in an atomistic sense, detached from considerations of societal welfare. Thus, Neoliberal economists and policy-makers focus exclusively on whether an individual has work or not, without considering the nature and purpose of an organization or company and its psychological and physiological effects on employees.

Overlooked for instance, are people who find work more fulfilling in not-for-profit organizations or, leading to lower stress levels. This bears out other criticisms made by Alan Watts, on the shortsightedness of modern society, i.e. viewing work as some contributor to economic well-being, as policy-makers now tend to do, without considering the purpose of work.

When an employee is unhappy at work one of two things must be at fault: the employee OR the work. The false happiness industry exonerates capitalism for engendering a largely mindless service sector which pays very little - and is based on repetitive tasks. Also, little chance in the society itself for advancement.  (Too many highly qualified people chasing too few quality jobs).

But never mind, it's not that the work is underpaid, the hours unreasonable or the product pointless. It's that the employee is just unhappy  - so maybe needs some Zoloft!    This is surely to fall into the behaviorist fallacy of viewing people as lab rats, just with slightly more developed ‘verbal behavior.’

All this suggest that any genuine change toward a mentally healthier society depends on altering social and economic structures - which will not be easy.

If one then cannot alter the current system, it is necessary to change the nexus, i.e. how that system interacts with us. Those underpaid, for example, can 'get back' at the system by saving more as opposed to blowing money on useless junk or diversions. Since the system depends so overwhelmingly on consumption, each saver who extends the national savings rate (now at 5.6%) will exert an impact - perhaps toward a day when a true livable wage will be on offer)

Our cognition of getting the best, or having the best also needs adjustment. Half a billion people on Twitter can all "tweet" all day so that the quality of tweets is debased by the sheer numbers of them.  Keeping "score" of followers or page views (for blogs) is also another introduction of conceivable angst over being "one-upped". Does 500 followers or 500,000 make one's blog better than one with 20? That depends! What is the content of the mass blogs? Is it showing a kitty on a stool punching out doggies? The point is that a mass-followed blog is not necessarily a quality content blog.  It is more likely evidence for too many pursuing the false happiness meme.

Then there are the "friend" numbers on one's Facebook page. How many use this index to measure their acceptance? Sadly, too many do which is why Facebook then becomes a millstone rather than a liberating means of connecting to family, REAL friends (who you've at least met and formed a real bond with).

In terms of academic research, there is also the inevitable "pecking order" of status, which supposedly confers some innate happiness. If one is therefore a prof at Harvard or Yale he's assumed to be "happier" in his work than someone at the University of South Florida or the University of Alaska.  But this makes assumptions which are themselves subjective. Perhaps the profs at USF opt for warmer weather, or those in Alaska. chose that venue because they love being near to the Brooks Range and having access to nature unseen in the lower 48.

Thus, if we want to live in a way that is socially and psychologically prosperous, and not simply highly competitive, isolated and materialistic, there is much evidence from clinical psychology, social epidemiology, occupational health, and sociology regarding what is currently obstructing this possibility. The problem is that, in the long history of analyzing the relationship between subjective feelings and external circumstances, there is always the tendency to see the former as more easily changeable than the latter. As many positive psychologists now enthusiastically encourage people to do, if you can’t change the cause of your distress, try and alter the way you react and feel instead.  In other words, if you have 20 FB friends as opposed to 2,000 for Joe Schmoe, celebrate it as "quality over quantity".  If a friend's instagram feed is depressing you with constant images of Paris, Rome, and Switzerland, maybe get off instagram.

In the end, all status -seeking based happiness is doomed to fail because it's predicated on artificial assumptions and one ironic truth: there will always be someone, somewhere who is superior in some way or form to you! Somebody with more money, a bigger home, a better blog, more Facebook friends, a seemingly superior academic pedigree , a better job .....or whatever.  Rather than cry and pout at that, the realistic option is to pursue your own well being in terms of fulfilling your own particular potential, whatever that may be. Indeed, a favorite Buddhist saying is that: "Happiness is being able to use one's abilities to the maximum".

That may be the closest we can get to any actual, practical definition usable in the here and now!
 

Garner Case Shows Aggressive Cops Need Attitude Adjustment

The segment on 'Morning Joe' several days ago was noteworthy in singling out the Michael Brown incident  as a case where a hyper-aggressive cop (Darren Wilson) could have backed off or called for backup  - but didn't. He chose instead to be the "macho man" and confront an unarmed Michael Brown for swiping a whole pack of cigarillos, then shooting him eight times at near point blank range in the process. The point of the legal guests on 'Morning Joe' is that such an incident called for "talking down" and not "taking down". If one on one talking down was too much for Wilson (or he was too terrified of a guy he described as "bigger than Hulk Hogan" while he was "like a 5 year old"), he needed to get other cops who could.

The problem is that today, too many hyper-militarized cops only want to take down, not talk down. Also exemplified with the Eric Garner case, where Daniel Pantaleo jumped in to confront and wrestle down Garner with a choke hold - rather than use a talk down. After all, big as he was, Garner was still unarmed. In the best case of all, of course, the aggressive Pantaleo and his 'crew' could have left it alone. I mean, for chrissakes, bringing a guy down for selling loose cigarettes? (About which I will do a later post regarding too many damned laws, which provide too many excuses for violent police action. Reduce the number of laws and reduce the incidents!)

But the Garner case also brings up the issue of police power trips, especially by the most aggressive cops. If these guys are then already of a mindset to take down, they will not display the patience and communication skills to talk down. (Note 'talk down' is most often used with persons attempting suicide - but needs to be generalized for all lesser crimes!)    After all, to a Neanderthal or militarist macho authoritarian,  it's easier to tase, shoot or choke than to talk. They want only instant resolution without taking time or trouble  - a recipe for disaster in our ever more complex social world.

The problem is that projection of ego and absolute power is what demands the slave posture. But no citizen, who is unarmed and basically minding his or her own business, should be subjected to this over the top public humiliation - even if he gives a cop some backtalk. And it certainly shouldn't be met with lethal force! Writer Kimberle Crenshaw, in a salon.com interview, puts the power dynamic exposed by these aggressive cops in perspective:

"We look at that video [of Eric Garner] and we can look at what’s happening in Ferguson and see that what was going on was not about policing against particular harms or injuries, it was policing against certain bodies and attitudes that those bodies have. It was about Eric talking back, and not throwing himself, basically, on the ground in a “yes master” kind of position."

Get that? A "yes massah" position, like a slave! In other words, the only way poor Garner could have spared himself was to immediately drop to the ground, and adopt a submissive slave position to the 'massah' cop, Pantaleo (who let us be reminded - as Chris Hayes noted this evening - has already faced 3 lawsuits for use of excessive force.)

 This hearkens back also to the patriarchal, prejudiced attitudes of the southern cops in MS and AL during the era of Bull Connor and the civil rights marchers. When Connor and his imps turned their fire hoses on the mostly black crowd and yelled at specific stubborn marchers,  "Git down on yorn knees, boy!"

Subservience and slavery! The only postures that would be acceptable, to a power drunk, aggressive cop-  if one was not to be construed as "resisting arrest". Hence, the only available postures that could have spared Garner's life. 

Ms. Crenshaw goes on:

"It’s about the imposition of authority and control. And that is the highway through which racial power is colliding with these bodies. So when I think of a dam, I think about shutting down that highway altogether and redirecting that energy.

The idea of all power and control [in policing] is the same as the underlying way the military thinks of itself —  we shock and awe with our power and control. In community policing, that means an officer tackles people, puts a chokehold on someone or shoots someone during an encounter about selling loose cigarettes or walking in the middle of the street."

Again, a spot on observation, especially invoking the military analogy. The same way we as a nation, subjugate lesser nations with our power trips of shock and awe - so also power driven cops subjugate "suspects" with power moves like choke holds for a petty offense like selling "loose cigarettes".

This is power gone mad, as well as authority, in both cases.

Crenshaw's last point is most apt:

"When I think about training, I think about the people who can model police and community interaction outside the need to create total control and domination."

This again is relevant. It was also Buddhist philosopher Alan Watts who wrote ('Does It Matter?') that one is least served in gaining compliance by the use of outright force. Even if the subject is perceived to "resist" - force is absolutely the wrong way to go. One instead empathizes and puts himself in the subject's mind and position and then there can be a "talking down" instead of a taking down. The issue inheres in seeing the humanity in the person, as opposed to seeing him as a "beast" or "wild ape". Therein the problem resides!

As long as aggressive cops are on the loose, alas, the take down reaction won't cease and meanwhile the outcry and public protests and civil disturbances will grow - until they reach a level such as we beheld in the Ukraine in the spring.

It redounds to the benefit of police departments around the country to train their personnel to deal with unarmed citizens without using force as a first resort, or even last. Talking down should be the priority, and if a cop fails at this, he needs to be removed from the force as unstable and incompetent in complex social dynamics.

Brute force in dealing with people will no longer be tolerated by the rank and file of citizens, as the current wave of protests show. The sooner police get that into their noggins, the better off we all will be.

See also:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349342/--Comply-or-Die-policing-must-stop?detail=email#

Excerpt:

Tyrannical cops wear their entitlement disorder on their sleeves thus:

When I am on the job it's your responsibility to make my life as easy as possible and don't do anything that might get me angry or otherwise set me off:  Just do exactly what I tell you, precisely and without delay, no matter how unreasonable.  If I decide I want to frisk you, let me.  If I decide I want to arrest you, let me.  If this is the fifth time I've hassled you this month, let me.  My whim counts for more than your dignity.

What Prof. Keith De Rose Gets Wrong About God Claims (Part 1)

In this blog post I consider a recent interview given by Keith De Rose, professor of philosophy at Yale University and the author of “The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context.” .   DeRose sought to assure Gary Gutting that God claims are valid and atheists have no case in rejecting them.  I will be giving my own responses after each of DeRose's, showing why he is wrong.

Gutting noted that De Rose made the following statement: “Since atheists’ only real hope of knowing that God doesn’t exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn’t exist doesn’t seem to me a very serious possibility.”

To his credit, Gutting went on to observe:

"I think many atheists would object that it’s wrong to require them to have an argument showing that God doesn’t exist. They’d claim their atheism is justified simply because there are no good arguments in favor of theism. After all, it’s theists who are making an extraordinary claim. Isn’t the lack of evidence for the claim that God exists sufficient grounds for denying it?"

This is the key point and crux of the matter, and in any initiation of debate or exchange it is always critical to tag whoever is making the extraordinary claim. Here, again, I note that the definition of 'GOD' is also relevant. If we are only talking about a non-literal or figurative deity - such as Einstein meant in reference to the "God of Spinoza" - then it is case closed because he didn't mean a supernatural, all powerful, all knowing Being but rather a regulative ideal predicated on the mathematical description of the universe. Ditto with the 'God' of Deists, who is claimed to have set everything in motion but then walked away from it. Even hard core atheists like Victor Stenger have no problem with this god as he noted in his book 'God and the Folly of Faith'.

Despite this,  De Rose's reply is as follows:

" I think you can sometimes rightly claim to know that something doesn’t exist even if you don’t have a good argument for your claim. This is the situation with the currently infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster: We all find it bizarre and literally unbelievable and so reject its existence without any argument."

I, in fact, think some of our most important and interesting knowledge comes not through anything like arguments, but from just rightly rejecting as bizarre things that so strike us."

Fair enough, but note how he's dodged the central issue. That is, how can Christians (or Muslims, or Jews or anyone for that matter) make a claim for deity without factual, evidentiary basis? But after further pressing by Gutting (a Notre Dame professor of philosophy), De Rose launches into the "God as distinct entity" argument:

"In any case, the situation is very different with God. The thought that God exists does strike many atheists as bizarre. But, in contrast to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there are all of these theists and agnostics who do not find the thought of God’s existence bizarre, and I really think they ruin our atheist friends’ hopes for easy knowledge here. The basic point is that, when there are many other apparently sensible people who disagree with you, you need a good argument to claim that you know they’re wrong

But again, this is a dodge. First, because he is arguing without having delivered a formal definition of the God he's making reference to. Second, no agnostic I know withholds belief in the generic form of "creative" deity peculiar to Deism but  rather in the more specific personal deity claimed by many  Christians .  Thus, for these agnostics, profound doubt prevents them from simply accepting a deity who knows every hair count for every person in the world (and all to come)  and what each is thinking every moment. It's a stretch too far! Third, Christians themselves differ widely on the concept of God they align with. And here again, it is well to note it is God concepts we are all about here and not the actual God-GOD of reality - assuming such exists.

Again, unless one has specified the nature of the 'God' one believes in,  the discussion is sterile and without point. Since the meaning of 'God' is vague then any claim can be made, and any expeditious rhetoric delivered with its applicability never called into question. This is what's so wrong with DeRose's claim of "many sensible people who disagree with you". Uh, not so - not when you press these "many people" to sit down and specify the nature of the 'God' they are claiming to accept. Is it a personal God that involves itself in every decision and breath a human takes? Is it an impersonal God like Brahman of the Hindus? Is it a detached God like that of the Deists? Unless we know what these "many people" are really claiming or believing in then it can't be said that they disagree with atheists in large numbers - since the lack of a coherent definition accepted by all trashes the "many people" argument - which, let's admit- assumes uniformity of belief in the SAME deity.


Prof. Gutting challenges De Rose once more:

"Are you saying that the mere fact that many disagree shows that we don’t have knowledge? Most of us deny without argument the existence of the gods of many religions (the gods of the ancient Greeks and of contemporary voodoo, the pantheon of popular Hinduism). Don’t we rightly claim to know these gods don’t exist, although many have and do disagree?"

And De Rose retorts:

"When your basis is not evidence or argument, but just how the matter strikes you, yes, the fact that the matter strikes others differently can undermine your claim to know. So, in particular, I am very skeptical about claims to know that the beliefs of major religions are false just because they strike us as bizarre."

Again, the point eludes him: at the core of religions' belief systems lie the definition of 'God' that they accept. Unless one parses the definition and explores its deficiencies one cannot be said to have discovered anything about the religions' validity. As for sounding the note of 'striking others differently'  this merely returns us to the subjective nature of God concepts, which as I noted in my recent book ('Beyond Atheism, Beyond God')  means all such concepts are relative and no one can be held up as exclusively true in respect of the others. But DeRose doesn't deal with any of this, preferring to talk in comforting generalities. 

Again, whether a religion or its God strikes anyone as 'bizarre' is irrelevant to the point of the evidentiary basis. Indeed, as I pointed out in previous posts, atheists need not even disprove a religion's God basis only show that whatever the basis is, it has no bearing on how we conduct experiments in science, for example. Or how we engineer safety factors into airlines, or how we build rockets to reach Mars or Pluto. In other words, the particular God concept or belief in God is actually redundant to how business is conducted in the real world - especially for the hard sciences like physics, as well as engineering.

Unphased, DeRose continues his answer to Prof. Gutting:

"If we knew that adherents to other religions came to hold their beliefs in some way that discredits them (say, through brainwashing), we might still know those beliefs are wrong on the basis of how bizarre they seem to us. Of course there are probably some individual believers who have come to hold their beliefs in a way that discredits them. But we don’t know enough about many believers to discredit their beliefs. So I don’t think we can know they’re wrong just because their beliefs strike us as bizarre."

Again, the central issue isn't believers' adopting "discredited" or bizarre beliefs, but rather whether  the beliefs and the 'God' behind them reflect a consistent reality that is in any way observable in the physical world. People in insane asylums also hold bizarre beliefs and many even claim to be 'God' - but rational people discount them because tests have disclosed neural defects or brain dysfunctions, such as schizophrenia.  Hence the source of their information or beliefs cannot be trusted. All of which bodes caution in accepting claims, irrespective of whether we know "all about" who is making them. It is for this reason atheists constantly harp on independent, objective tests in the real world.

Prof. Gutting then at last cuts to the chase:

"O.K., maybe atheists can’t rightly claim to know that theism is false just because they find it a bizarre claim. But atheists also point out that theists don’t put forward any evidence for the existence of God that stands up to rational scrutiny. Isn’t a total lack of evidence for a claim sufficient reason for denying it?"

As usual, DeRose dodges the question and uses obfuscation:

"No. When there’s a genuine dispute, a lack of evidence on the other side does not give you knowledge if you don’t have evidence for your claim."

But the issue is first, what is being claimed and second, the comparative QA for evidence on either side.   In general it isn't a question of whether knowledge exists despite lack of evidence, but whether the side that claims belief based on knowledge possesses a consistent and valid epistemology - or method of obtaining knowledge. For example, most atheists embrace science when they adopt the "extraordinary claims" argument. Science selectively excludes problems for which no practical method of inquiry exists. The supernatural, on which most religious claims are based, is neither measurable or verifiable, so falls into this rejected category and that includes ‘God’. More to the point, we tend to regard such entities held by virtue of belief alone – as opposed to evidence - as evocative of superstition.  The latter encompasses such beliefs, especially when the supernatural realm is populated by invisible beings which can supposedly affect and interact with our world. To the empirical scientist this is the very epitome of superstition.

 

In addition, most physical sciences, still operate on the principle of materialist reductionism. Thus, our job and duty is to remorselessly cull all dross or irrelevant issues that clutter as opposed to expose, what our objects of inquiry are about. This means all invisible, unapproachable entities must go into the epistemological dumpster.

Prof. Gutting again tries to steer DeRose into a sensible response:

 

"Of course, many atheists insist that they don’t claim to know that there is no God. They at most maintain that God’s existence is highly improbable, but don’t claim absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist. So, for example, if theists came up with good evidence for God, they might change their minds."

And what does DeRose say?

"My suggestion is that neither theists nor atheists know whether God exists. And here I don’t just mean that they don’t know for certain, but that they don’t know at all."

This is true, but as a long time atheist would aver: It doesn't matter! Whether God exists has no bearing whatsoever, none, on the quality of our scientific research, its testable hypotheses, or how the tests are conducted. Apart from which, one can't say "atheists don't know whether God exists" unless the definition of God is first given - which DeRose clearly avoids in each of his responses.

For example, if "God" is taken to be identifiable with the universe itself (pantheism), there is good reason not to accept it. After all, it was Buddhist philosopher Alan Watts who first alluded to the danger of pantheism when he asked the question (in his book, 'Does It Matter?'):

"If the universe is identified with God, and the universe is destroyed in a 'Big Crunch' or superheated explosion, does that mean God is destroyed too?"

By the same token, if "God" is taken to be defined as the ultra-Being of ancient theology: i.e. as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc. there is also excellent basis to reject it since the "Omni" attributes end up making the Being contradictory as I pointed out in the penultimate chapter of my own book.

 None of this DeRose appears to grasp - or if he does, he prefers to let it slide or cover in obfuscations. As when he continues:

"I don’t think the arguments for either theism or atheism lead to knowledge of their conclusions. But there are arguments on both sides from premises that someone might reasonably judge to be plausible. If you find it quite probable that God does not exist, I think it’s perfectly possible that you are reasonable to think as you do. But this doesn’t mean that someone who thinks it is likely that God does exist can’t likewise be reasonable in holding that position."

True, in terms of the latter, but only again IF his God is defined. As we see already from these responses in Part 1, DeRose can get away with a lot because all the way through he adopts an elastic definition within which he can contain a baby asteroid, or more to the point -  mold his responses any way he wants to fend off Gutting's probes while making it appear ALL theists are as rational as your basic, garden variety, scientifically informed atheist.

More to come in Part 2.