Fantastic video, just discovered -- George Thorogood with John Lee Hooker, Elvin Bishop, Willie Dixon, John Hammond -- live at Capitol Theatre, Passaic, NJ in 1984 -- play it, then read my post from February, "Boogie Til You Drop"

Courage, Determination, Strength

Face-to-Face with Disability Awareness

William Sundwick

We knew about her disability. We had hosted her in our home once before, three years ago, for a different event in Washington. But this time was different. Activism was her primary motive. The earlier event had been about religious advocacy in a more general sense. This time we shared her outrage and planned on participating in the “March for Our Lives,” anyway.

My primary mood preceding her arrival from Ottawa was that although we had an obligation to her (i.e., sympathy for her plight), I dreaded having to deal with her multiple disabilities for a whole week! She uses a walker due to balance issues, is hard of hearing with aids that are only partially effective, and near-sighted without a proper prescription for eyeglasses – apparently, even the Canadian health care system can’t help the poor and disabled enough. Also, swallowing and denture issues prevent her from eating many of the foods that are a staple in our household (not to mention restaurants).

Is it her poverty that’s the key to her difficulty? Perhaps -- even in Canada.

Most of the resources on Turner Syndrome emphasize that early identification (even prenatal) is best for what may be prolonged ERT (Estrogen Replacement Therapy). That’s the first thing that jumps out when you read the descriptions of the genetic abnormality. But our Canadian friend was not diagnosed until her teen years, when she failed to menstruate. Her symptoms nevertheless were manageable, once she accepted her likely infertility. She became a nanny and married an American.

Only as she approached middle age did things start to unravel. The 10 per cent hearing loss climbed over a few years to a 50 per cent loss. Brittle bones and balance issues caused increasing danger for falls – she’s used a walker since her mid-forties. When she flies, she requests wheelchair accommodation. She looks for ramps and cuts in the curb when walking on the street. Our house has none of that. Closed captions on TV help her immensely, and she can’t use voice communication on her phone. She also needs a Blackberry with actual keys, can’t use the touchscreens of typical smart phones and tablets. At the Dulles ticket counter, she had trouble reading even the large signs over the airline desks.

Her American husband died from a massive stroke in 2005. He had suffered cardiovascular problems since he was tortured as a Vietnam prisoner of war. Lobbying Congress was on her agenda while in Washington. She cares about torture (her Facebook page: “Torture Is Always Wrong”). She hand-delivered a one-page letter to each Senator’s office (all 100, both parties) condemning the nomination of Gina Haspel as Director of Central Intelligence. Despite them being in recess, she was pleased by the reaction she received in the three Senate Office Buildings. She also gave an enthusiastic thumbs-up to her visit with the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. She’s confident that, after applying in person, she will be seeing survivor benefits soon. 

Her hand-painted sign for the March read “Canadians Stand with U.S. Children.” It was painted on a pillowcase by a friend. She claims that even in childhood she was outspoken – “listen to me!” “I’m special!” – she thanks her parents for much of her activism. The Turner diagnosis simply gave her more of a focus. Her husband’s struggle added to it. Now, she is convinced that she does matter – she can do much, she can instruct, she can share her strength and her resolve. She can create her own platform by shouting at demonstrations and writing angry emails. Her message, delivered wherever she can get a platform, consists mostly of: “there are many of us,” and “let me be your voice” – our rights are no fewer than others’ – and, we are eager to form alliances with other marginalized groups. We need to be “in your face” more, not less!

It is a powerful message. Those of us with privilege are forced to contemplate what it’s like to not be taken seriously. The implications for intersectionality cannot be missed. It really is about the blindness of privilege. We should all be called. There is no ambiguity in this message. We all need to seek affiliation with organizations that promote the marginalized -- whether churches, political party, charitable organizations, or street protests.

The marginalized include children who are potential victims of gun violence.

The marginalized include veterans who have been victims, beyond their understanding, of the horrors of war.

The marginalized include people who suffer the effects of rare genetic abnormalities that come to rule their lives.

When the privileged start noticing the marginalized, that’s a beginning. Next comes analysis. What accommodations are needed for the marginalized group? Who are the decision makers? What can be done to affect the power relations between the marginalized group and the decision makers? The Disabled need to tell the Able-bodied what they need. Others need to tell the powerful and privileged what they require, as well.

While it may feel good for the privileged to claim they sympathize (even empathize) with the marginalized, little is accomplished without action. Power analysis and direct confrontation – whether in the streets or at the polls, or both – is what will bring action. At the March, hundreds of thousands shouted in unison, “vote them out!” 

In the meantime, those of us who must force ourselves to pay attention, because it is so unpleasant to be aware of the marginalized, can listen. We can reflect on our own precarious privilege. I sometimes wonder how long I have before my mental acuity starts to slip – already, I am rattled when my daily routines are interrupted for a week by the visit of a disabled house guest -- I lost the nighttime use of my office, since it is in the only first floor room with a sofa bed (Quelle horreur!).

Yes, I am listening … yes, the struggle continues. It’s not easy to listen.

  Cognitive Revolution to Homo Deus

Yuval Harari’s View of History

William Sundwick

Inspired by Jared Diamond’s 1997 best seller Guns, Germs, and Steel, 35-year-old Israeli history professor Yuval Noah Harari published his first book, Sapiens, a brief history of Humankind (2011 in Hebrew, English edition 2014). He, like Diamond, takes a long view of human history – starting his story with the event which occurred about 70,000 years ago. He dubs it the “cognitive revolution.”  It resulted in the replacement of Homo Neanderthalis by the species Homo Sapiens. Harari maintains Sapiens possessed the unique ability to use imagination, to depict abstract ideas, and to create a narrative (not the same as signaling, common to many animal species). Notwithstanding recent dating of some cave “art” (mostly orderly lines and hash marks) as coming from Neanderthals, only Sapiens could sit around a fire and relate stories to family or hunter-gatherer band, says Harari.

The ability to create a narrative, in turn, facilitated cooperation in much larger groups, ultimately leading to settlements, villages, and agriculture. Villages grew into tribes, then kingdoms, then empires. Gods were invented to give order to the world, priests were created to enforce the rules made by those gods.

In his second book, Homo Deus, a Brief History of Tomorrow, Harari focuses more on what we have come to know as “civilization.” He recounts mankind’s journey from God-and-Nation centrism to the triumph in the late 20^th century of “liberal humanism” (or simply, “liberalism”) nearly everywhere. Humanism itself was a creation of the old order, as God was taken as the facilitator of human empowerment. It was really technology, in Harari’s view, that enabled this development. The modern age, the age of science, has now replaced the God of the old order with the notion of progress. In the 21^st century, Harari claims, not only God, but nation-states, and even capitalism, will gradually succumb to a world controlled by algorithms – smarter than any humans, yet created by them. Including bioengineering (CRISPR), Harari thinks these technological advances will, by century’s end, mean the beginning of the end of Homo Sapiens, much as the cognitive revolution 70,000 years ago spelled doom to Neanderthals. Meanwhile, though, we’ve had a good run. He calls our replacement “homo deus,” man with godlike powers.

Harari is a vegan, he cares as much about animal consciousness as human -- and believes that industrial animal farming is essentially a holocaust. His realization that there is no accepted scientific definition of “consciousness” is what led him to the animal rights position. He believes that animals cannot be dismissed as less-than-conscious beings, leading directly to his doubts about the durability of humanism. If you accept the principle that God and religion were invented by man, and religious authority always has been interpreted by humans to advance their own agenda, it is not difficult to understand his position.

Enter the algorithm. Harari posits that there are organic and inorganic algorithms. Biological entities are organic algorithms, machines are inorganic. But, they are all algorithmic -- they follow mathematical and physical laws. The universe, in the scientific world view, is composed of algorithms.

What about morality? Ethical principles can survive in a world controlled by algorithms, says Harari. But, we do not yet know how to design an algorithm that would allow a driverless car to swerve to avoid hitting pedestrians, even though it would kill its occupant. Is its occupant the “owner?” That may be the critical question. Does ownership of the algorithm convey property rights which supersede the right-to-life and happiness of any conscious beings using the algorithm? We’re stuck with the humanist dilemma.

Right to happiness, of course, is nothing that Sapiens has been especially vigilant at protecting – even in the modern age. Harari claims that there is no evidence that modern humans are any “happier” than primitive hunter-gatherers. They may live longer, they certainly have more stuff, but are they happier? Like consciousness, happiness is without scientific definition. As to the triumph of liberal humanism, it has created a more peaceful world. Fewer humans die violent deaths than in times past. And, Harari claims there is much evidence to support that modern man is less oppressed than in earlier ages, due largely to humanism. But, for all we know, pre-agricultural societies may still have the edge in “happiness.” 

Looking to the future, Harari foresees the creation of a “useless class” who are not only unemployed, but unemployable. He expects this group to be very large by mid-century. The culprit is mostly artificial intelligence, which will become so advanced as to reverse the history of technological change. Whereas in the past, technology always created more new opportunities for employment than jobs lost, the story of the 21^st century may be different. Unlike the loom, the steam engine, or even the computer, AI will ultimately render the entire human race redundant. First to go will be human labor as an economic engine. Already, our growing inequality speaks to the declining value of human labor in the formation of capital. This economic truth is what has led to the downfall of socialist humanism, as opposed to liberal humanism.  Workers, even collectively, can’t compete with other means of creating capital – economists call what happens on Wall Street “rent-seeking” – not production in the classic Marxian sense.

Only religious and political enforcement of “individual liberty” (the foundation of liberalism) continues to work in the interests of human beings. What happens when we lose our sense of “self” to the all-powerful algorithm? Individuals become completely predictable. They may continue to be customers, but their consumer behavior, and voting patterns, will be precisely manipulated by the algorithm. No more mysterious “self,” no more “soul.” The species then dies. It will be replaced by a partially organic, partially inorganic, algorithm, which can be sentient, or not, depending on the needs of evolutionary design and the environment.

“Techno-humanism” may be the path forward. If we sapiens can successfully harness the new technology so it remains the servant, rather than master, of our species. A strong ethical imperative may still undergird it. But, more likely, and more ominous, claims Harari, is a new religion he calls “Dataism.” This will replace humanism with belief in the data stream, a supra-conscious entity of which we are all part -- cogs in the eternal flow, as it were. His final question: where are ethics and morality in such a religion?

  It’s Tax Time Again!

Random Grumbles and Philosophy

William Sundwick

Do you believe that all taxes are theft? Or, do you simply fear you may not be able to correctly determine how much you owe the IRS, because your income taxes have become so complex? Maybe you object to certain elements of the tax code, to bloated defense budgets, or too much entitlement?

Whatever the excuse, many people seem to enjoy grumbling about their taxes. They may feel, in their heart, that all taxation is theft – that they deserve to keep their hard-earned money for themselves. But, when pressed, unless well-lubricated, few admit to those feelings. They know on some level that there is a social contract requiring shared responsibility for maintenance of civilized society.

In the United States, there is a growing divide between those who consider themselves wealthy and those who do not. In fact, growing inequality is an issue worldwide, not just in our country. This can be confirmed with economic statistics. It is not just a matter of self-perception. But, self-perception may be the dominant factor in how much we grumble about paying taxes.

People generally resent paying taxes to support those they consider better off than them, or as Arlie Hochschild writes, “cutting ahead of them in line.” Taxation must be sold as something which benefits ALL taxpayers. Progressive tax schedules are supposed to address the issue. But, the question of where the revenue gets spent is unavoidable. Tax “loopholes” are often understood as primarily benefiting those wealthier than us.  But, how many of us really know where we fit in the modern American wealth distribution pie?

Much of the inequality discussion these days tends to divide the country into two groups – the 99% and the 1% (a meme from the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011 that seems to have stuck). Of course, everybody we know is likely to be in the 99%. If, instead of that extreme division, we talk about the top 10% or 20%, we begin to see the “middle class.”

But, since even a 20-80 division places the vast majority of Americans at something less than upper middle class affluence, good socialists still have much to complain about. I’m doing my 2017 taxes now, and don’t have much hard information about what my 2018 taxes will look like – post “tax reform.” Initial analysis, however, suggests that most of us in the top 20% will get hit (even if not that top 1%). Should we be bitter?

I say no. While some provisions of the act seem to reward economic rent-seeking (like corporate tax cuts going for stock buy backs), and some are motivated by partisan politics (like state and local taxes no longer being deductible), the basic structure of the tax code is still progressive. The wealthy pay more. But, if you think you are footing the bill for those who are not wealthy to get a “free ride,” you’d be wrong. People who know they are rich usually understand wealth distribution. People who don’t realize they are not rich often object most to taxes, even though they pay little as is. They are driven more by social animus than economic hardship.

This leads us to the wonderful “democracy” we live in, and its small clique of elected officials. Congress and state legislatures are forever trying to appease their supporters – especially their financial supporters. They continuously introduce incentives for certain business activity to benefit their specific “constituents,” via the tax code. There are also the organized pressure groups (they are “constituents” as well) who may demand changes in the tax code to punish certain behavior – these take the form of “sin taxes,” usually regressive sales or excise taxes. Should we resent this feature of democratic government?

Again, I say no. Democracy has a price tag. If there is to be any forward movement in the body politic, somebody must pay for it. The political sphere is, indeed, composed of constituent groups. But, there are alternate ways of organizing power, besides money. Organizations that seek to leverage power can set themselves up as charitable entities, allowing financial supporters to claim a tax deduction – for example, the ACLU Foundation, or Southern Poverty Law Center.

Does all this push and pull in the tax code contribute to making tax time just too darn hard to figure out? Thanks to the wonders of TurboTax, I can say no to this complaint, as well. Intuit keeps refining their product every year. For 2017, it looks to me like even my more complicated tax year is easily handled by the software’s interview format. It feels like a conversation with a friend, or mentor. I can’t believe that years ago I paid a tax accountant to do my taxes! I think many a tax preparer must have been put out of work by the Internet, especially by Intuit, with TurboTax and Quicken.

We’ll see what 2018 brings. I’m resigned to not being able to deduct advance payments for property tax assessment – I made a good try, immediately after the tax bill was signed on Dec. 22. But, so long as my mortgage lender gives me credit for having paid a portion of my 2018 taxes, I guess I won’t complain too much. After all, I have chosen to live in one of those high tax blue states.

Are taxes really that painful, then? The answer seems to lie deep in your orientation to society, and what role you believe governments should play in it. And, perhaps there is a secondary factor for you – have you kept all your tax records for the previous year, in a well-organized fashion? Even TurboTax can’t divine figures from documents that don’t exist.

Thanks to some big capital gains, I need to pay estimated taxes for next year – but, even that process is facilitated by TurboTax. (This is exciting, I’ve never had this situation in the modern Internet era!)

It always feels good when I file my return – another milestone measuring what I’ve accomplished in the past year. It ought to feel even better when I owe money to the IRS at year’s end, rather than getting a refund. But, perhaps that’s a bridge too far.