hey are expecting concentration camps any day soon. — Tom Storm

Large scale internment camps of 'hostile aliens' are an immanent possibility. Trump has already ordered construction of one at Guantamo Bay, to accomodate 30,000 unfortunates.

the remaking of America along radical libertarian lines. — Tom Storm

and in the the event of total economic collapse, all of the ultrawealthy will withdraw to heavily armed gated communities. Sounds dystopian, doesn't it?

The next really big part of this crisis will be the budget resolutions and debt ceiling negotiations, middle of next month (beware the Ides of March).

It’s likely to get much uglier, don’t you think? — Tom Storm

I'm frankly very scared about it. A lot of people (including my dear other) think I'm overdoing it, but I think we're looking at the worst global crisis since 9/11. It dismays me that so many people are shrugging it off or falling in behind him. I don't think they understand what's happening.

Surely some disgruntled and powerful ex FBI/CIA types are making plans... — Tom Storm

If not, a screenwriter, based on that scenario. As far as the police, military and intelligence community goes, how much loyalty do you think they'll have to the Orange Emperor? My guess would be, precious little. The police likely hate him for releasing all the Jan 6th police bashers. He routinely denigrates the intelligence community and military. So if push comes to shove, how much of a chance do you reckon the Proud Boys militia would have? (This is why he's desparately trying to purge the entire intelligence community and putting appartchiks in charge of them and the military.)

these people do see the government as the real enemy here — ssu

The unfortunate fact is that America has elected a President who hates Government and is also really bad at governing.

Trump’s power grabs will go on until someone stops him – and that’s not happening soon.

My wager is that those animals tend to live in a sort of zen-like state, more or less as described by ↪Wayfarer. Why are we not like them, in our ordinary lives? Precisely because of the more "human" parts of our brains. The humanized parts of our brains are like a double edged-sword: on the one hand, they allow us to live in a more rational way. They are responsible for our science, technology, art, and philosophy. However, they also sort of "disconnect" us from our more primal, animalistic nature. — Arcane Sandwich

Quite. A passage from a powerful essay that I will sometimes cite. (It was originally published online as a reaction to 9/11, by a Californian Zen teacher and poet, reproduced in a book of his essays. It provides a rich framework for consideration of the deeper issues.)

The animal world is a world of pure being, a world of immediacy and immanence. The animal soul is like “water in water,” seamlessly connected to all that surrounds it, so that there is no sense of self or other, of time, of space, of being or not being. This utopian (to human sensibility, which has such alienating notions) Shangri-La or Eden actually isn’t that because it is characterized at all points by what we’d call violence. Animals, that is, eat and are eaten. For them killing and being killed is the norm; and there isn’t any meaning to such a thing, or anything that we would call fear; there’s no concept of killing or being killed. There’s only being, immediacy, “is-ness.” Animals don’t have any need for religion; they already are that, already transcend life and death, being and nonbeing, self and other, in their very living, which is utterly pure.

[In his book, A Theory of Religion] Georges Bataille sees human consciousness beginning with the making of the first tool, the first “thing” that isn’t a pure being, intrinsic in its value and inseparable from all of being. A tool is a separable, useful, intentionally made thing; it can be possessed, and it serves a purpose. It can be altered to suit that purpose. It is instrumental, defined by its use. The tool is the first instance of the “not-I,” and with its advent there is now the beginning of a world of objects, a “thing” world. Little by little out of this comes a way of thinking and acting within thingness (language), and then once this plane of thingness is established, more and more gets placed upon it —other objects, plants, animals, other people, one’s self, a world. Now there is self and other—and then, paradoxically, self becomes other to itself, alienated not only from the rest of the projected world of things, but from itself, which it must perceive as a thing, a possession. This constellation of an alienated self is a double-edged sword: seeing the self as a thing, the self can for the first time know itself and so find a closeness to itself; prior to this, there isn’t any self so there is nothing to be known or not known. But the creation of my 'me', though it gives me for the first time myself as a friend, also rips me out of the world and puts me out on a limb on my own. Interestingly, and quite logically, this development of human consciousness coincides with a deepening of the human relationship to the animal world, which opens up to the human mind now as a depth, a mystery. Humans are that depth, because humans are animals, know this and feel it to be so, and yet also not so; humans long for union with the animal world of immediacy, yet know they are separate from it. Also they are terrified of it, for to reenter that world would be a loss of the self; it would literally be the end of me as I know me.

In the midst of this essential human loneliness and perplexity, which is almost unbearable, religion appears. It intuits and imagines the ancient world of oneness, of which there is still a powerful primordial memory, and calls it The Sacred. This is the invisible world, world of spirit, world of the gods, or of God. It is inexorably opposed to, defined as the opposite of, the world of things, the profane world of the body, of instrumentality, a world of separation, the fallen world. Religion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. We want this, and need it, as sure as we need food and shelter; and yet it is also terrifying. All religions have known and been based squarely on this sense of terrible necessity. — The Violence of Oneness, Norman Fischer

In other words that h.sapiens and canids (etc) are beings of different kinds. I said that the ability to speak, count, create technology, pursue science, and the like, amounts to a difference in kind, not simply one of degree.
— Wayfarer

Can I ask, what defines this difference for you, that is the difference between a difference in kind and a difference of degree. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know what the difference is between an ontological distinction and any other kind, so forgive me if I just talk about a distinction (or difference). It seems to me that there are differences between h. sapiens and other creatures and similarities. A big part of the issue is which of them matter, and that depends on the context. — Ludwig V

As I've introduced this idea of there being an ontological difference or discontinuity between humans and other animals I will attempt to justify and describe it.

But bear in mind, the origin of the discussion in this particular thread, was in respect of Berkeley's philosophy, and, in particular, his empiricism, and his insistence, with the other empiricist philosophers, that sensory experience is the sole source of knowledge.

As noted in 's response, this contention was criticized by Kant, in an effort to differentiate his 'transcendental idealism' from what he described as Berkeley's 'dogmatic idealism', and also in a more general sense because of Kant's insistence of the fundamental role of the a priori in the understanding. That is an element lacking in Berkeley's philosophy (and indeed in all of the empiricist philosophers).

I introduced what I understand of the Aristotelian-Thomist (A-T) criticism of Berkeley's empiricism, as described by Edward Feser in several online posts. At issue in that criticism is the claim that reason makes use of another faculty, apart from sensation and imagination, and it is this faculty which distinguishes the human intellect. As Jacques Maritain, another A-T philosopher, put it, what distinguishes the human from animal minds, is the ability to grasp universals - the universal 'man' for example. He contrasts that with the intelligence of the dog (and this can be said with all due respect to the status of dogs as companion animals, for whom I have great affection). A dog doesn't form a concept of a class or kind but 'reacts in a similar manner to the similar particular impressions [from] his eyes or his nose'. Feser adds to this, the idea that universals are the fundamental constituents of rational judgement (I will mention again his post Think, McFly, Think, for a more detailed description.)

Getting back to the 'ontological distinction'. Ontology means 'kinds of being'. For instance, in information technology, the ontology of a network would comprise a description of the different kinds of components that it comprises (e.g. servers, printers, routers, pc's etc. Not the inventory, but the kinds of devices - inventory would be separate.) In philosophy, 'ontology' has rather fallen out of favour (as has 'metaphysics'), partially because it's a rather archaic term, but also because it relies on making the kinds of distinctions that sit uncomfortably with naturalism, which tends not to categorise this way.

So - in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, the distinction between humans and animals is not merely one of degree—it is an ontological distinction. Animals are sentient, but their consciousness is bound to immediate experience. Humans, by contrast, possess rational intellect, allowing for abstract thought, self-reflection, and moral reasoning. This places humans in a separate category, traditionally referred to as animal rationale (rational animals) rather than merely sentient beings. It is also the source of what is loosely described by 'the human condition'. I am critical of the way that neo-darwinism, on the popular level, erases this distinction, although that is tangential to this thread. My only purpose in bringing in A-T was to highlight their criticism of Berkeley, which I believe has merit, even though in many other respects, I am prepared to defend Berkeley's idealist philosophy.

:100: Totally with you on all that. Thanks for summarising his Refutation of Idealism.

I appreciate everything you said. I am reading a book about the Christian mythology of being God's chosen people and what this has to do with the westward movement and assuming China would improve as Christian missionaries spread Christianity through China. — Athena

Somewhat related - there's actually a fascinating story of how an ancient, heretical Christian sect reached China after having to escape persecution in what is now Persia. They were the Nestorian Christians, and they were given refuge in the Middle Kingdom, where they settled, and distributed copies of the Gospel story, replicated in Chinese on silk scrolls, with all of the names Asianised (Jesus being 'Issa' and the scriptures being called the 'Issa Sutras'). THis happened very early, in 600 A.D. or so. You can find the wikipedia entry here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East_in_China and there are various documentaries, and this book.

I think you should put more energy into making a positive case for the ontological distinction you're introducing to other people, — goremand

Thanks. It is a theme I write a lot about. The post you're referring to is a follow up on a previous conversation in another thread on rational thinking in animals and humans. I don't think my view is obvious, I've done a lot of research, reading and thinking about it over a long period. I'm criticizing a view which is thought obvious by many.

If you want me to try and explain the reasoning in more detail I'm more than happy although it is probably more relevant in that other thread.

:clap:

'“Modern culture,” argues D.C. Schindler “is largely a conspiracy to protect us from the real.”

I have copped some hostility in the past for saying that the aim of modernity is to create a safe space for the ignorant. I'm sure it's the same idea.

I got a marvellous book a couple of years back, Radiance of Being, Stratford Caldicott (avery poignant story of his premature death from cancer too). I really related to his story, also, as he had been deeply studying Mahāyāna Buddhism before converting to Catholicism. There's a strain of Christian Platonism that I'm very drawn to, although I have real problems with the institution and its history.

Trump completely blindsided everyone with that idea. He hadn't consulted anyone about it - Cabinet, State, Defense. I almost felt for him, when he said that Gaza is a living hell, because it plainly is. But in terms of realpolitik, it's plainly a non-starter. The fact that he can broach such far-reaching ideas by way of almost-casual remarks ('Hey, how about we....') beggars belief.

More to the point, NY Times lists all of the definitely or possibly illegal actions Trusk has taken since Inauguration.

Musk hasn't totally destroyed Twitter yet — Count Timothy von Icarus

IN hindsight it seems likely that he only bought Twitter as his personal megaphone. The fact that it's estimated to have lost 75% of its market value doesn't appear to bother him, but then, talk about money to burn.....

Something more alarming is, imagine how deep the DOGE hooks will now be embedded in the IT systems of the Federal Government. I'm sure it's not coincidence that the DOGE troupe are mainly software engineer types. Infiltrating those systems at such a high level of permissions has many profound consequences. And here's the US, worrying about 'foreign actors' hacking their systems (although not worried enough for Congress to complain when Trump moves to retrench virtually the whole of the CIA.)

Trump's presidency is heading for ever-greater amounts of turmoil and instability. He completely blindsided Congress with his ridiculous Riviera in Gaza thought bubble, but the really major chaos will erupt in March, when the floor votes begin on funding the Federal Government and raising the debt limit. A government shutdown - and recall, Trump presided over the longest of these to date and mainly out of pique - is quite possible.

Meanwhile, Hakeem Jeffries spells out the Democrat view on MAGA extremism.

Good to know! I too had astounding experiences with lysergines, when it was still legal, which says something (I am after all a baby boomer). As you say, impossible to really describe, and even to remember, in some ways. Although one vivid memory that stays with me was seeing something like 'the great perfection' - this sudden realisation of the overwhelming beauty of all nature, one morning at dawn, looking at a young sapling growing from the crevice in a moss-covoured rock. Along with the realisation that we're generally dead to that beauty because of the weight of habituation (gee, I said that well).

At some point, the drugs wear off, and you're back to your ordinary life, with ordinary experiences. — Arcane Sandwich

Buddhist meditation teacher, Jack Kornfield, wrote a book called After the Esctacy, the Laundry, which is exactly about this point (although not specifically related to hallucinogens).

I'm sure that hallucinogens do provide a window to a higher or alternative reality - once you've seen it, you can't deny it. But integrating that insight or vision with daily life is a very different matter. Part of those insights have stayed with me, but there's a lot of it buried under...well, I've already said that.

I know a current Zen master, an American roshi called Meido Moore. He often emphasises that with some training and diligent application, an initial satori is not that uncommon. But what's really hard, is stablising that insight and actually living from it day in, day out. I guess that's why Zen training is so legendarily rigorous.

This is just behaviourism restricted, for some reason, to animals. But many people were quite happy to explain human beings in that way as well as animals. It is a way of thinking about them, not vulnerable to a simple refutation. (Compare religious belief).

But If "a dog reacts in a similar manner to the similar particular impressions his eyes or his nose receive from this thing we call a piece of sugar or this thing we call an intruder;" how does it not see or smell the sugar or the intruder and know perfectly well what they are - what the appropriate reaction is?. I'm bewildered. — Ludwig V

We discussed this at length on that thread on rationality in humans and animals. I distinctly recall holding the minority view in that thread, as I maintained that the Aristotelian distinction of h.sapiens as 'the rational animal' is a valid ontological distinction. In other words that h.sapiens and canids (etc) are beings of different kinds. I said that the ability to speak, count, create technology, pursue science, and the like, amounts to a difference in kind, not simply one of degree.

Now as for whether that is a 'religious belief'. The reluctance to acknowledge what I take to be a clear ontological distinction between homo sapiens and other species seems to stem from a broader philosophical commitment—one shaped by the widespread influence of Darwinian naturalism on our conception of human nature. In many ways, evolutionary biology has reinforced the view that we are fundamentally continuous with the rest of nature, which is something many cherish, both as an expression of scientific understanding and as a foundation for ecological and ethical values. And I do not in any way wish to diminish the importance of those values.

However, I believe this perspective risks overlooking a real distinction that has profound existential implications. Our capacity for self-awareness, symbolic language, and complex tool-use sets us apart in ways that are not merely matters of degree but of kind. While we should certainly recognize our biological continuity with the rest of nature, we should not let that recognition obscure the radical difference that defines our cognitive and cultural life. I suspect that some resistance to acknowledging this distinction arises because evolutionary theory has, in some sense, come to function as a meta-narrative—a way of understanding our place in the cosmos that, in its broadest cultural expression, tends to downplay discontinuities in favor of an overarching unity by flattening such ontological distinctions. It is one of the consequences of the cultural impact of empiricism that Jacques Maritain (and, in a different way, George Berkeley, are criticizing.)

If he (the dog) has not the idea or concept, he does not know the thing. But since he responds appropriately to the thing, he has a concept of it. Not necessarily the same as yours and mine, but similar. — Ludwig V

The point of Maritain's essay is precisely that a dog (or other non-rational sentient beings) lack the specifically human capacity to form concepts. 'The human intellect grasps' says Maritain, 'first in a most indeterminate manner, then more and more distinctly, certain sets of intelligible features -- that is, natures, say, the human nature -- which exist in the real as identical with individuals, with Peter or John for instance, but which are universal in the mind and presented to it as universal objects, positively one (within the mind) and common to an infinity of singular things (in the real).' This is, of course, Aristotelian realism, and Maritain says he is an Aristotelian.

The Edward Feser blog I posted puts it like this:

As Aristotelians and Thomists use the term, intellect is that faculty by which we grasp abstract concepts (like the concepts man and mortal), put them together into judgments (like the judgment that all men are mortal), and reason logically from one judgment to another (as when we reason from all men are mortal and Socrates is a man to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal). It is to be distinguished from imagination, the faculty by which we form mental images (such as a visual mental image of what your mother looks like, an auditory mental image of what your favorite song sounds like, a gustatory mental image of what pizza tastes like, and so forth); and from sensation, the faculty by which we perceive the goings on in the external material world and the internal world of the body (such as a visual experience of the computer in front of you, the auditory experience of the cars passing by on the street outside your window, the awareness you have of the position of your legs, etc.).

That intellectual activity -- thought in the strictest sense of the term -- is irreducible to sensation and imagination is a thesis that unites Platonists, Aristotelians, and rationalists of either the ancient Parmenidean sort or the modern Cartesian sort. The thesis is either explicitly or implicitly denied by modern empiricists and by ancients like Democritus...

I would say 'reason' rather than 'thought' but I think the point is clear. So, no, I don't think that dogs and cats entertain concepts, but I hold that on philosophical, not religious, grounds. And that this goes against the grain of modern culture, precisely because of the cultural impact of empiricism.

Here you have a bunch of unelected officials shoveling out US taxpayer money to foreigners. They know the democratically elected head of state doesn't want them to keep doing this, and thus that they have no real mandate to do it. They no doubt know that their work is not very popular with the American public. But they scramble to get as much cash out the door as possible. The recalcitrance! — Count Timothy von Icarus

I kind of understand the hostility to foreign aid but as I said, a change in policy ought to be discussed, circulated, and executed carefully with due oversight, not carried out in the dead of night by a hastily-assembled group with no Congressional approval or oversight. That article I copied in above is one of many showing the ripple effects all throughout the developing nations and crises situations as clinics and food distribution centres go dark. Large numbers of people are suffering and dying as a result, although of course, they're not American, so what?

But U.S. government officials privately warn Musk’s blitz appears illegal. 'Privately', because nobody dare criticize Dear Leader.

The chaotic blitz by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has triggered legal objections across Washington, with officials in at least a half-dozen federal agencies and departments raising alarms about whether the billionaire’s assault on government is breaking the law.

Over the past two weeks, Musk’s team has moved to dismantle some U.S. agencies, push out hundreds of thousands of civil servants and gain access to some of the federal government’s most sensitive payment systems. Musk has said these changes are necessary to overhaul what he’s characterized as a sclerotic federal bureaucracy and to stop payments that he says are bankrupting the country and driving inflation.

But many of these moves appear to violate federal law, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, one audio recording, and several internal messages obtained by The Washington Post. Internal legal objections have been raised at the Treasury Department, the Education Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the White House budget office, among others.

“So many of these things are so wildly illegal that I think they’re playing a quantity game and assuming the system can’t react to all this illegality at once,” said David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School. ...

“The big-picture constitutional worry is that there is a kind of shadow executive branch that is existing and operating and exercising power outside of the channels the Constitution and the statutes that Congress authorized,” said Blake Emerson, a professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law.

Another story notes that Congress has basically capitulated to Trump, even though many of his demands and actions are borderline illegal and clearly in violation of what had been previous Republican policy.

It’s not business as usual.

A report on the immediate and drastic impacts of the USAID closure in Africa.

Foreign Strongmen Cheer as Musk Dismantles U.S. Aid Agency

The DOGE Troupe:

Musk’s team of youngsters, as first reported by WIRED on Sunday, is Akash Bobba, 21, a student at the University of California, Berkeley; Edward Coristine, 19, a student at Northeastern University in Boston; and Ethan Shaotran, 22, who said in September he was a senior at Harvard.

The ones who actually have degrees, or at least have left college, are: Luke Farritor, 23, who attended the University of Nebraska without graduating; Gautier Cole Killian, a 24-year-old who attended McGill University; and Gavin Kliger, a 25-year-old who attended Berkeley;

The group’s relative lack of experience—especially no previous positions in government work—has Democrats crying foul they were granted access to sensitive records while remaining largely in the shadows, away from public scrutiny.
All six desperately tried to cover their digital tracks recently, almost all of them deleting LinkedIn profiles, X accounts and even Facebook. — TheDailyBeast

These are the experts who Trusk is using to manhandle ten thousand employees out of their jobs.

After looking up the definitions, I've changed the thread title.

Oligarchy - government by a select group.

Plutocracy - government by the very wealthy.

As the Trump cabinet comprises 13 billionaires, and as the World's Richest Man is acting as a kind of freelance change agent on Trump's behalf, 'plutocracy' is nearer the mark that 'oligarchy'.

:up:

If we can squeeze a trillion dollars out our worker pockets, think how much can be squeezed out of the pockets of the 1%? — BC

The US ultra rich pay obscenely low amounts of income tax, something that will never be challenged by MAGA, which is after all has a record number of billionaires in Cabinet.

Read the passage in my last post. Lifelong conservative Republican, ran USAID under W. He and others are saying that the forced merger of USAID into State without congressional approval is illegal and that Musk is acting without clearly-defined authority or oversight. (Trump is too busy making up foreign policy on the run to pay attention.) Many politicians expressed the view that the termination of Inspectors General without notice or due cause was illegal. Opinions have been published that this act was, if not outright illegal, in violation of the requirement that due cause and notice is given, see American Oversight Opens Investigation into Mass Firings of Inspectors General by Trump Administration

The source for the Politico quote is here. FWIW, mentions that Australia and Canada folder their foreign aid organisations into State departments.

From what I have seen Musk did not do anything without approval from the White House. I mean, what is the objection, here? — Leontiskos

A nod and a wink from Trump does not a proper authorisation make. Again, surprised by your view, but from now on I will confine any conversations with you to matters philosophical.

Andrew Natsios, who ran USAID under President George W. Bush and is a lifelong conservative Republican, calls such moves “illegal” and “outrageous.” What Musk and Rubio are doing “is criminal. They can’t abolish the aid program without a vote of Congress.” — Politico

The President appoints the administrator of USAID (and other executive agencies). Congress approves the appointment. — Leontiskos

But Rubio was confirmed as Secretary of State. The decision to merge USAID with State was not approved by Congress, nor even floated with them. As for job cuts:

The Trump administration said today that it is pulling almost all US Agency for International Development (USAID) workers off the job and out of the field worldwide, moving to all but end the agency's six-decade mission overseas that fought starvation, funded education and worked to end epidemics.

The administration notified USAID workers in emails and a notice posted online, the latest in a steady dismantling of the aid agency by returning political appointees from President Donald Trump's first term and billionaire Elon Musk's government-efficiency teams who call much of the spending on programs overseas wasteful.

The order takes effect just before midnight on Friday and gives direct hires of the agency overseas – many of whom have been frantically packing up households in expectation of layoffs – 30 days to return home unless they are deemed essential. — Channel 9 Sydney 5th Feb

Did you hear what Musk said at the top of this thread? “We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” Mr. Musk gloated on X at 1:54 a.m. Monday. “Could gone to some great parties. Did that instead.” This is a guy who is literally barging into some of the most sensitive offices in the Government and threatening anyone who stands in the way with arrest, making decisions on the fly as to what programs, jobs and spending should be cut, and directing a bunch of 20-something y.o. engineers to carry out his orders. And you're OK with that? I really don't understand.

Trump summarily fired a dozen Inspectors general 10 days ago. That also was illegal as each act requires approval by Congress and 30 days notice.
— Wayfarer

Are you just making things up? — Leontiskos

No, I'm reading international media.

From your link:

A recent amendment to the Inspector General Act, the Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022 (Title LII, Subtitle A), changed the notice provision to require a “substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons” for the removal. It also narrowed the president’s options under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA), for replacing a terminated IG. The 2022 law was mainly a response to Trump’s first-term IG firings and manipulations of the IG system. It was one of very few executive branch reforms during the Biden administration.

The Friday IG terminations were announced in emails from Sergio Gor, the White House Director of Presidential Personnel. Gor said the removals were immediate and reflected “changing priorities.”

So, your opinion piece says one thing, but plenty of others differ. And the whole point of Inspectors General is that they're not political appointees, and generally none of those fired were. They're being fired to make way for MAGA appartchiks.

If the American people didn't want cuts they shouldn't have asked for them. — Leontiskos

Right - cuts are perfectly understandable. Had the debate been had, USAID been informed that it was to be merged with State, staff told that it was happened and had a chance to respond and wind up operations, it wouldn't be a story, and I wouldn't be complaining about it. But that is not what is happening. This is like the US equivalent of Kystalnacht.

scare-mongering. — Leontiskos

The Myth of Cassandra

In Greek mythology, Cassandra was a Trojan princess blessed with the gift of prophecy by the god Apollo. However, after she rejected his advances, he cursed her: she would always see the truth, but no one would ever believe her. This left her in a tragic position—she foresaw the fall of Troy, warned her people not to trust the Greeks and their wooden horse, and later predicted her own death at the hands of Agamemnon’s wife, Clytemnestra. Each time, her warnings were ignored, leading to inevitable disaster.

I'm sort of surprised to see Australians with a bookmark in the New York Times expressing such strong opinions on U.S. politics. — Leontiskos

Two of my grandchildren are American. Their father is a dual citizen. And as the old saying goes, if America sneezes, the world catches cold. America is going to do much worse than sneeze, and the world is going to get much worse than a cold.

Senator Rubio, who is now the acting head of USAID — Leontiskos

An illegal appointment. U.S.A.I.D. was established by an act of Congress, and can't be dissolved or merged into State without Congressional approval. Of course the MAGA congress is totally supine, but the point of principle remains.

Or does it? Trump summarily fired a dozen Inspectors general 10 days ago. That also was illegal as each act requires approval by Congress and 30 days notice.

So, question: do you support the right of Trump to act illegally in such cases, and the right of the Executive to ignore Congress and established law? That Trump can, in effect, rule by decree, as he is appearing to do? Why bother with Congress and Senate at all? Frank's already said democracy has failed.

the idea that everything within USAID is being cut seems like scare-mongering. — Leontiskos

It is far from scaremongering. All of USAIDS websites have gone dark and nearly all their employees have been frozen out of their accounts. A few exceptions have been made but there are thousands of programs that have been terminated without notice.

What's the opposite of scaremongering? What do you say when you see a real clear and present danger, and the people standing next to you shrug it off?

I imagine you have to work for a living. Put yourself in the position of a USAID staffer, who is told on Sunday night, without notice, that their job is terminated, and find themselves locked out of the office and their systems the next day. How would you feel about that? All for a good cause?

If you like Husserl then you are in a good position to evaluate if Lonergan improves on the general landscape of phenomenology, and the particular features of realism, naive realism and critical realism. thanks for writing! — theThomist

Hey I'm open to what you're saying, but you're not giving us much to go on! How about, put together an OP - have a look in https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/44/help first particularly Creating an OP, and Forum Tips and Tricks - and then maybe link to an article or introductory text.

And let me ask you this: the USAID projects that have been abruptly terminated without notice, run things like medical clinics, malaria prevention programs, countless food aid and charity programs, all throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East. These services actually do save many thousands of lives every year. Do you think if their abrupt termination due to Musk's unilateral decision that USAID is 'an evil organisation', results in thousand of deaths, then that is justified in the name of the United States balancing its budget?

Secondly, as USAID is at the forefront of US 'soft power', then what of the sudden, massive vacuum in international aid caused by this withdrawal, what with tens of thousands of people going begging, who do you think might be the most likely of the global political powers to rush in and fill that vacuum? Would that have any bearing on considerations?

Trump and his allies will be dead long before much more ice melts off of Greenland's chilly shores. — BC

actually not that long, going on recent data. And their gravesites may well be underwater.

One of Trump's campaign promises was to address the federal debt. Musk and others are the ones he put on that job. — Leontiskos

I'm sorry but the way he's going about it is an outrage. He's being given latitude to prevent programs being executed that have already been approved by Congress. There are many things that he's doing, and that Trump has done, that are blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. I'm really dismayed that an intelligent contributor such as yourself can be so sanguine about it, it's really completely beyond the pale.

If Trump wanted to do it formally, DOGE would be an advisory panel, and they'd draw up a list of programs and expenditures to cut, and take it through Congress and Senate. Barging into Federal offices without any authorisation other than 'Trump says so', and cutting programs and expenditures that are already in progress, is a completely different thing.

Strange, that. I went back to Gemini after making that post and asked again, and it just kept saying 'I can't help with responses on elections and political figures right now.' Maybe because I used 'President Bill Clinton' in the prompt? It's kind of creepy, though. What with the Orange Emperor just having been handed a list of 5000 FBI agents he wants to sack.

ChatGPT showed no such reticence about Bill Clinton, saying

From 1998 to 2001, the federal government ran a budget surplus, meaning revenues exceeded expenditures. This was the first time the U.S. had a balanced budget since 1969. Several factors contributed to this:

*Economic Growth – The 1990s saw strong economic expansion, partly driven by technological advancements and the dot-com boom.
* Tax Increases & Spending Restraint – Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which raised taxes on higher-income earners and controlled government spending.
* Bipartisan Cooperation – In 1997, Clinton worked with the Republican-controlled Congress to pass the Balanced Budget Act, which further limited spending.
* Defense Cuts & Welfare Reform – Post-Cold War defense spending reductions and welfare reform measures helped reduce expenditures.

By 2000, the U.S. had a budget surplus of about $236 billion, the largest surplus in U.S. history at that time. However, these surpluses did not last long, as tax cuts, increased military spending, and economic downturns in the early 2000s led to deficits again.

Of course, the merest suggestion of raising taxes causes apoplexy amongst the MAGA, never mind that tarrifs are, of course, a tax on imports.

President Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan included $255 billion in spending cuts over five years. — BC

I seem to recall Clinton balanced the budget. (I asked gemini.google about this fact, and it demurred, saying 'I can't help with responses on elections and political figures right now.' And people are freaking out because DeepSeek won't answer questions in Tianamen.)

As has been pointed out, Musk is the democratic bureaucrat, given that his job derives from a mandate. — Leontiskos

In what sense, derives from a mandate? He has been summarily appointed, without Congressional or Senate oversight, and the barest of instructions, no guidelines, and not even the appropriate security clearances. Of course the US debt is an international calamity, and economic collapse is a real possibility. But having an unelected, unsupervised oligarch making unilateral decisions that affect millions of lives and thousands of employees is not any kind of solution to that.

My thoughts exactly. Surprised and delighted by the quality and the conversational style. (Right now I'm using ChatGPT to re-learn basic web scripting skills and GitHub, which I've done before but then forgotten. Don't know how I did it first time around! Oh, and I visited Oxford in 2022 - high point of our European tour - although we weren't allowed into the Bodleian itself, apparently a high privilege.)

I'm going to need to ask you two if you have horses in this race, before proceeding any further. — Arcane Sandwich

If you’re asking whether I think it matters, then ‘yes’.

I'm open to the idea that God might exist, and that Jesus might be God. — Arcane Sandwich

I suppose that's something. But let me make an observation here. I don't generally make it my business to argue for belief in God on this forum. I'm not an atheist, so I do believe that religion has a real referent, it is about a reality, not a 'social construct' or psychological projection. But when you ask the question as what that referent might be, it is very difficult to answer. If it were a straightforward matter, one could point to something by way of definition. But defining the nature of deity or the idea of the Sacred is not at all straightforward. This is why the question tends to fragment into innummerable, and often conflicting, mythological or philosophical accounts. And of course there's nothing remotely like a consensus possible in any of this in today's cultural landscape.

In any case, and in a roundabout way, what I meant by my earlier remark was that for an atheist, the question of the nature of God's existence doesn't matter in an existential sense; it doesn't mean anything for her conception of the nature of existence. It's a theoretical or hypothetical matter. Whereas for the believer, the question has real import: she believes that there is something at stake beyond the hypothetical. Something like the fate of her immortal soul, which, of course, means nothing to those who don't believe it's even a meaningful idea.

As to the question of whether and in what sense Jesus is identical with God, there is, on the one hand, 'I and the Father are One' (John 10:30). But then on the other, Mark 10:18 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God.'

I interpret that against a kind of pan-religious perspective which understands the figures in these expressions as archetypal realities. So that here when Jesus says 'why call Me good?', he's gesturing towards his particular self, the ego or persona. That is precisely what Jesus says must die, when He says, 'He who saves his own life will loose it, he who looses his life for My sake will be saved'( Mt 16:25). In other words, 'dying to the self' or the selfish or egoic perspective is required to be 'born again' into the Holy spirit. That 'ego death' is not unique to the Christian faith (although of course, for Christians, Jesus is the archetype.)

But understanding the themes of 'union with the Divine' (in Christianity, called 'theosis' or 'beatification') at least on a literary, if not an existential, level, is necessary to understand what the question of the identity of Jesus with the Divine means.

Since I'm an atheist... — Arcane Sandwich

...the question is actually meaningless to you, and is basically a form of entertainment, if that.

Around 8 p.m. on Sunday, a USAID staffer pushed forward $78 million for food and shelter to Palestinians living in Gaza. Two hours later, that staffer and contractors working in over 100 countries were locked out of their email accounts. Then just past midnight, staff received an email from Gavin Kliger, a young engineer working for Elon Musk, announcing that headquarters was closed for business. By Monday morning, the U.S. government agency that sends assistance to tens of millions of the world’s neediest people “from the American people,” as its motto states, was effectively dead.

Over the past 72 hours, a dozen sources recounted the final days of the U.S. Agency for International Development before an effort led by Musk and supported by President Donald Trump crippled the agency and put it under the control of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is now acting director. It appears to be the first of an untold number of federal agencies that the Trump administration seeks to remake without the approval of Congress. Democrats have accused the administration of breaking the law.

As the agency began to crumble under an attack from its own government, staffers worked frantically to send money keeping hospitals and soup kitchens from Gaza to Sudan running, saying that people may die as a result of the chaos. As of Monday afternoon, they were trying to send $305 million to the World Food Program. “We’re blowing through all the normal processes to get this out as quickly as possible,” says one staffer. Employees couldn’t even tell their partner organizations, with which they were communicating regularly as recently as last week, how much money was coming. “I don’t think anyone has any idea what’s going on.” — New Yorker

Many people will die because of these actions. Perhaps that's OK with the American electors, although you can bet that their chosen media outlets will not report it.

Lonergan demonstrates how you can't have science without the scientist. — theThomist

As did Edmund Husserl. Any similarities there?

As Elon Musk digs into the federal bureaucracy in his crusade to slash government spending, he has a tool that no aspiring cost-cutter has had before: his own giant social media platform to debate, shame and bludgeon anyone who stands in his way.

Since the inauguration, Mr. Musk has attacked journalists and X users for posting the names of people working with him, calling it “a crime.” He’s accused Treasury Department officials of “breaking the law every hour of every day.” And Mr. Musk has mocked Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, as “hysterical.”

On Monday, Mr. Musk celebrated his progress, posting he had fed the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government’s lead agency for humanitarian aid, “into the wood chipper.”

And on Tuesday, Mr. Musk began a poll on X: “Would you like DOGE to audit the IRS?”

The comments show how Mr. Musk, who unlike traditional government figures rarely holds news conferences or speaks to reporters, is using his social media site as a powerful tool to promote his goals as part of the Trump administration. Since the inauguration, Mr. Musk has unleashed a barrage of posts to his more than 215 million followers, promoting conspiratorial rumors about his adversaries, pressuring senators to confirm the president’s cabinet picks and weighing in on foreign elections.

On top of that, Mr. Musk’s account is becoming one of the few sources for information about the billionaire’s secretive stampede to slash the federal budget, an initiative he calls the Department of Government Efficiency.

X has given Mr. Musk an unusual avenue to showcase his unapologetically confrontational approach to cost cutting in a way that appeals to President Trump’s base, tech policy experts said.

“The performative aspect of this is key. It’s a big part of what populism is,” said Sarah Kreps, the director of the Cornell Brooks School Tech Policy Institute. “To be able to have this very visible shake-up really is important to the constituency that rose the administration to power.”

Mr. Musk and a spokeswoman for the cost-cutting initiative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Musk’s transformation of X into his political megaphone began when he bought the social media company in October 2022. The next year, he became the most followed person on the site. Engagement with his posts has since mushroomed, according to X’s metrics, making him the loudest voice on the platform.

Now, Mr. Musk, who is chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, has charged into his new role to cut government spending, swiftly moving to transform at least half a dozen government agencies, challenging congressional authority and potentially breaching civil service protections.

His project has worked to shut down U.S.A.I.D. Leaders of the cost-cutting initiative have also pushed out top officials there and at the Treasury Department who objected to the actions of his representatives, and ended leases on government office spaces.

As part of those efforts, Mr. Musk has used his X account to critique federal agencies in his cross hairs. U.S.A.I.D. is “evil” and “a criminal organization,” Mr. Musk wrote in separate posts on Sunday.

Lawmakers including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, and Mr. Schumer have accused Mr. Musk of overreach.

Early Tuesday, Mr. Musk reposted a comment by Mr. Schumer, who said Congress must stop what amounted to an unauthorized hostile takeover of the government.

“Hysterical reactions like this is how you know that DOGE is doing work that really matters,” Mr. Musk said in response to Mr. Schumer. “This is the one shot American people have to defeat BUREAUcracy, rule of the bureaucrats, and restore DEMOcracy, rule of the people.”

Mr. Musk’s business portfolio, which relies in part on government contracts and subsidies, has raised conflict-of-interest concerns, although Mr. Trump has brushed off those fears.

After Ms. Ocasio-Cortez criticized Mr. Musk’s conflicts of interest, Mr. Musk replied, “Do you actually write these or am I replying to your intern?”

Mr. Musk also turned to the platform in recent days to defend those working on his initiative. The billionaire has likened identifying those assisting his cost-cutting effort to doxxing, an online harassment tactic that involves posting private information like addresses and phone numbers.

After several workers’ names were published in media reports, X removed some posts on the platform that publicized the employees’ identities and suspended some accounts that had shared the information.

“Don’t mess with @DOGE,” Mr. Musk wrote in a post on Monday night in response to people attempting to name and shame the workers.

Mr. Musk also boasted on X about the removal of the account for 18F, a digital services agency that is part of the General Services Administration. After fans raised concerns about projects the agency had worked on, including one that critiqued racial bias in facial recognition systems, Mr. Musk posted that the agency was “deleted.”

While its X account is gone, the agency so far has survived. — Elon Musk’s X Becomes Weapon in Government Cost Cutting

Not for long, one must surmise.


Source
Some of the nefarious activities undertaken by the criminal organisation.