The Decline and Fall of the American Dream

Martin Luther King had a dream. The country's Founding Fathers apparently had one too, an ideal to be aspired to, the Great American Democratic Experiment. Their dream was to create a country based on principles, not race, ethnicity and tribalism, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".  

Yet in the two hundred and forty five years since the Declaration of Independence was signed, that dream has proved elusive.  Granted the country as created enormous economic wealth in aggregate yet it remains remarkably unequal, not just in outcomes, which is to be expected, but in opportunity which should not be.

With the new millennium, a generation has begun pushing more forcefully to realize that dream, and to grapple with the sins of the past that still cast a long shadow, sometime real, sometimes imagined. With it has come a shift in culture towards compassion and collectivism and away from the rugged individualism that once was central to so many Americans' sense of identity.  

David Brooks, writing about his visit to the National Conservatism Conference, sees the right as turning to the state as the only tool left to ward off the woke evil corporate behemoths, the indoctrinating mind-control of higher education and the cultural censorship of the so called main-stream media. Some of what Brooks fears is already happening.  Conservative legislatures are gerrymandering electoral districts to their advantage, and putting partisan electoral officials in place of supposedly neutral ones. They are banning books from schools and dictating curriculum.  That may stem the tide for a while. 

But suppose the "NatCons", if (or rather when) they get the levers of power, they go further. Trump has already set the stage for a more authoritarian approach to governing. If the illiberal regimes he so admires (Turkey, Hungary, Belarus) are the template for the NatCons' philosophy, censorship and increasing curtailing of speech and thought deemed inconsistent with the national interest (i.e., their philosophy) may come next. 

Ultimately, that may not only mark the end of the American Dream as a set of aspirational principles, it may also cripple the American Dream's economic component. International trade with Europe could suffer, universities will attract fewer top-notch faculty from abroad, entrepreneurs may find other more attractive places to work. And when innovation and trade suffer, the economy follows, and as it does, the immigration needed to make up for a declining birthrate will decline. Assuming that the country does not implode in something approaching civil war, America will sink into a slow fading-away, no longer seen as the beacon of freedom it once was.  So the the GOP, I humbly suggest, "be careful what you wish for".  

Get Back

Peter Jackson's editing of the three weeks of footage of the Beatles at work, leading up to the rooftop concert, provides some interesting insights into the creative process and team dynamics.   

First, the creative process. It was quite remarkable to hear how some relatively vague initial ideas quickly came to sound like the songs everyone knows ("Get Back", for example).  While the emergence of an almost finished product seems miraculous, it is a function of, and a testament to, their experience of working together and their skill at coming up with parts that fitted so well. In the end, their competence as a group of musicians allowed them to turn in an almost perfect performance in minutes rather than the hours or days it takes less seasoned players.

The other fascinating aspect of the film is the team dynamic. In the first episode, McCartney is trying to take a leadership role (something Brian Epstien provided, at least regarding work schedules, until his untimely death) but McCartney is clearly struggling. George Harrison seems to have retreated in to a passive aggressive relationship with McCartney. McCartney's belated and rather ham-handed and attempts to placate him only make matters worse and Harrison walks out of the film (and, at least temporarily, the band).

Also interesting is the relationship between Lennon and McCartney; in a secretly recorded conversation, Lennon admits to having acquiesced to whatever McCartney wanted and seems resigned to it. Lennon also comments on how Harrison feels undervalued. It is not clear to me from that conversation whether McCartney quite understood how his behavior had affected the other members of the group.  I imagine the dynamic between Lennon and McCartney had evolved over the years (since McCartney was "hired" by Lennon into the Quarrymen and was also younger than Lennon).  

I was struck by the contrast with the Amadeus String Quartet which formed while its members were also quite young (in their mid 20s - not quite as young as the Beatles). The Amadeus Quartet remained productive, cohesive and amicable until Peter Schidlof's death led to the remaining members' decision to stop performing after 40 years together. One big difference, of course, is that Amadeus Quartet formed when its members were in their mid-twenties while the Beatles came together in their late teens.   

Peter Jackson commented on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert that his film, despite being crafted from the same raw footage, tells a quite different story from that of the film "Let it Be".  I'm not sure it does. While it is true that the members of the band were still having fun playing together at least some of the time, there are clearly big issues that aren't being addressed; George Harrison's feeling under--appreciated, Richard Starkey in some sense resigned to being "just the drummer", even tension between Lennon and McCartney over creative ideas. The joking, seemingly a throwback to their early, more care-free days as teenagers, may make the day-to-day bearable, but does nothing to resolve the underlying tensions. 

And while Jackson tried to downplay the effect Yoko Ono had on the dynamic, he may be missing the point. It's true that Yoko didn't insert herself into their work but Jackson misses two things - first what Ono says to Lennon when they are at home, although given that it was McCartney who finally called it quits that may be lees of the issue than simply her presence in the studio. She may not have said anything but while she was there, Lennon's attention was divided between her and McCartney; and since McCartney had been used to Lennon's undivided attention when they were creating together in the early days, that may have been what convinced him that they could never get back to the close collaborative relationship they once had.  The Get Back sessions were, it seems, an attempt to go back to the band's creative roots working less experimentally and more simply and collaboratively and a big part of that was the Lennon-McCartney writing partnership. If McCartney felt that they could never get that back because Lennon wasn't as completely focused on the band as he had once been, McCartney may have felt that the experiment had failed and it was time to move on. 

Returning to the issue of the dynamics and personalities, Lennon seems much less goal-oriented than McCartney and seemingly would have been happy to continue to working. But my sense is that McCartney wanted to keep moving forward, keep putting out records, keep in the limelight, and didn't see the Beatles as being able to deliver on his schedule.

Might things have turned out differently had Yoko Ono not come into their lives or had McCartney recognized his attempts to lead the groups after Epstien's death were not working? Perhaps: but the question is rather pointless.  What really matters is that, in the end, the Beatles gave us a catalog of extraordinarily creative work for which we should simply be immensely grateful.

The Rittenhouse Verdict

The jury's verdict in the Rittenhouse case has, unsurprisingly, been controversial. Much stems from the confluence of two issues; the use of deadly force and inequitable treatment based on race. As has been pointed out, had Rittenhouse been black instead of white, is it almost inconceivable that he would not have been arrested on the spot (or even shot by the police) rather than allowed to return home to turn himself in later. That (among other things) is one aspect of the racial component. Another might be his becoming a cause célèbre for Fox, which again would be unlikely to have happened were he a black teenager. That afforded him an expensive, high profile and well prepared legal defense team instead of an over-worked public defender.

However, those were not the questions the jury had to consider; it was asked rather to determine the very narrow question of whether someone carrying a weapon has the right to use deadly force to defend him or herself in the particular circumstances of the case. There were three different instances; in the first, Rittenhouse was chased by an unarmed man; in the second he was attacked by a man wielding a skateboard; and in the third he was threatened with a hand gun. In the first two, Rittenhouse shot and killed his assailants; the third was seriously injured. 

Rittenhouse was acquitted in all three instances. His defense was that even when being threatened or attacked by someone who was either unarmed or armed with an everyday object (a skateboard) he was  justified in fearing for his life and hence justified in using deadly force.  While it seems a stretch that he would be in fear of his life when set upon on by someone who was unarmed, the defense suggested that had Rittenhouse been overpowered, his assailant would have taken his gun and used it to shoot him.  Although to the man on the London omnibus, that seems highly unlikely, it cannot be unequivocally ruled out, which may explain the jury's verdict.  The jury also did not consider (or were not asked to consider) whether putting oneself needlessly into harm's way in a somewhat provocative manner made the claim of self-defense less robust. 

Ultimately, the verdict seems to pave the way for anyone carrying a gun to claim that the person they shot might have taken their gun and used it against them, making their killing justified based on that hypothetical scenario. A similar case concerning the killing of Ahmaud Arbery is currently underway and the same defense will almost certainly be used. Gun rights activists assert that the "Only Thing That Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun Is A Good Guy With A Gun". The problem with that philosophy is that who the good and bad guys are is in the eye of the beholder. The trajectory we appear to be on leads almost inexorably to everyone needing to carry a gun. That's not what I think of a civil society and is certainly one I don't particularity want to live in. 

Vic, Chief Gravity Tester

Vic, chief gravity tester and my bunk buddy, left us this morning at 5:27 after a very short illness. He was probably no more than eight years old.

Although he may have been sick for some time, he showed no symptoms until ten days ago. Diagnosed with a stomach ulcer a week ago today, we had hoped he'd make a full recovery. But despite making progress mid-week, he took sharp a downward turn yesterday from which there was no coming back.

Vic (short for victim of animal cruelty) came to us on April 1st 2015. He'd been shot three times in the head with a .22 rifle by a local teenager who thought it would be fun to shoot stray cats. Vic underwent surgery and two of the three bullets were removed. It is a miracle he survived at all. Judith rescued him from a parent who she judged was quite unfit to look after him, and brought him to live with us. She adored him - he was definitely her favorite.  

Vic was mischievous and smart. When he wanted your attention he would jump onto a counter-top and bat things—plastic bowls, plastic jars of treats, pens—to the ground; then he'd stare at you to make sure that he'd gotten your attention. I can see his face, head cocked quizzically to one side, peaking out from the alcove to make sure I was paying attention. Sometimes he just liked to bat things of counters for the fun of it, earning him the honorary title "chief gravity tester".

My bunk buddy

 

He wasn't the most social of our feline family, nor the most affectionate but he was the strongest character. While he slept in the bedroom most nights among a gaggle of cats, he'd occasionally sleep next to me with his head on my pillow.

And occasional work companion

 

 

From time to time he would curl up under my chair while I was working and very occasionally sleep in my lap with his head on the keyboard shelf or on the desk with his head on my arm.

 

 

It's hard to believe he'd only been part of the family for six and a half years - his presence was so strong that it is hard to remember a time before he arrived or imagine a time without him. His passing will leave a huge void in our lives, but he's in a much better place now than he was last night and this morning. God speed Vic. May the force of gravity be with you, always; as you are in our hearts.

 

Taking a sun bath at the breakfast table

Inflation

When demand exceeds supply, firms can either keep prices the same and stock out, or raise prices which has the effect of reducing demand.  Covid has had an odd effect on both supply and demand. For the lock down it reduces the demand services (no one was eating out or taking trips abroad) and but had little effect on demand for goods; if anything it may have risen as money not spent on services shifted to spending n goods. At the same time covid disrupted supply; less was made as firms adapted to the demands of health protection and different work practices needed to combat the pandemic. And the "Great  Resignation", a function of people having to reevaluate their priorities, made permanent some of the reductions in service provision, further bolstering demand for goods. 

The result has been a steep rise in prices with the rate of inflation more than tripling to well north of 5%. Some (including Paul Krugman) has argued that the situation is temporary since it was cased by the supply chain disruption that will abate in 2022. However, some features are structural shifts will won't return to the status quo pre-pandeminc. Moreover price rises and price reductions are seldom symmetric; prices rise quickly and fall slowly (if at all). So even if the recent price rises were a result of a temporary disequilibrium between supply and demand, once consumers have gotten used to paying more, prices may not come done much. So inflation this year and next will likely be well above the 2% target set by the Federal Reserve. 

No time to loose

A few years ago I bought several cheap but stylish watches. Each was about $20, so I decided to have one for summer time and one for daylight savings time. That way I'd never have to adjust my watch when the clocks changed. 

Early this morning the clocks went back and I put on my daylight savings time watch. I hadn't worn it since March 13^th and almost certainly hadn't adjusted for several weeks before then. 

Checking against my phone and my desktop clocks, both of which are synced to internet time, my cheap $20 watch is seven seconds fast. Since at some point last year I did make sure is was within a second or so of internet time, it has gained only seven seconds in six months or longer. 

When I think back to my second watch, a Tissot my father gave me when his colleagues gave him a new one on his retirement, that Swiss movement made by a company renowned for its accurate time pieces, had to be adjusted practically every day.  That's the kind of remarkable progress which comes with the passage of time. 

A Vigilante Society

Two stories in the news this week illustrate the United States' decent into a vigilante society; the first is the trail of Kyle Rittenhouse, accused of murder for shooting dead two people and wounding a third, allegedly in self defense.  Rittenhouse, who was not from Kenosha, Wisconsin, had traveled across state lines claiming to want to protect Kenosha property owners from having their stores looted or destroyed by demonstrators protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake, who is Black, by a White Police office (who has not been charged int the shooting). The other is the case of Ahmed Arbery, who was chased down and shot by three self-appointed vigilantes. In both cases, self-defense is being cited as justification for the killings. Yet in both, untrained civilians with no, or in the Arbery case highly dubious, legal authority took it upon themselves to mete out their own personal version of "justice".  We are in danger of substituting the rule of law for the rule of the most heavily armed.