Forty-three years ago I proved a powerful and important theorem in the mathematical reinterpretation of Karl Marx’s economic theories. I was, I thought, the first person who had even thought to prove the theorem and I was extremely pleased with myself (although the advanced mathematics that I used to prove the theorem would have been easy for any undergraduate mathematics major at a decent college or university.) The next year, in 1981, I published my results in a journal article. John Roemer, a very gifted Marxist economist and mathematician, wrote a comment on my article in which he noted that a Spanish economist, Josep Vegara, had proved the same theorem several years earlier. I guess it is a pretty good thing to be the second person to prove an important theorem, but it is nothing like being the first person.
Fast-forward 42 years and once again I have been upstaged.
Yesterday afternoon, as I was watching Kevin McCarthy’s ritual humiliation, I
reflected that the real solution to the standoff would be for five or six
Republican Congresspersons elected from districts carried by Biden to declare
themselves Independents and vote for Jeffries, on condition that when they ran
for reelection no Democrat would run against them in their districts. I knew it
would take some more time before this became likely but it seemed to me
eventually to be a genuine possibility. I decided to write a post on this blog
about my idea. A little later, as I was watching the Ari Melber show on MSNBC
he had on as a guest the irrepressible Michael Moore, who put forward exactly
the same idea. (I am sure all of this has long since been widely discussed in
the Democratic House leadership, but what the hell.) Moore added something that I did not know and
had not occurred to me: apparently in every Congress of 435 members, as many as
10 or 15 do not make it to the end of the term, either dying or retiring or
running for some other office or whatever.
Moore predicted that before this Congress is over, Jeffries will be
House Speaker.
On a brighter note, although my local supermarket has
stopped carrying that to-die-for popcorn, they do, it turns out, carry candied
popcorn that is almost as good and I finished most of a bag yesterday watching
the fun.
Well, in 6 minutes the House convenes again. I must go.
20 comments:
Listening to Congressman Gaetz talk about “purity” made me sick. What’s the status of his prosecution for trafficking and violation of the Mann Act? Why is he even allowed to vote as a member of Congress?
While Moore is likely correct about the result of coming special elections (as I pointed out yesterday), the problem with the proposed bargain is that Republican primary voters in Biden districts are just as deranged a Republican primary voters in Trump districts. Any Republican representative voting for Jefferies would be primaried and most likely lose. The proposed "bargain" would be political malpractice.
They wouldn't be running in Republican primaries because part of the "bargain," as laid out in the OP at any rate, is that they would switch registration from Republican to Independent. I believe that only Republican candidates are allowed to run in Republican primaries by state Republican parties, which control that.
LFC, that keeps them on the ballot in the general election but the proposal is still problematic.
This weakens/fractures the local Democratic party structure. Just how do you keep locals from running on the Democratic ballot anyway? Most likely we would wind up with a further left then normal, poorly funded and supported Democratic candidate running against an "Independent" and a Republican in a (save for a very few states) FPTP election. What could possibly go wrong?
These guys won a Republican primary. They are at least to the right of the right-most democratic House member. How does this work out?
As with Ukraine, this is hardly the time to go wobbly.
JUST LEAKED! Footage of the backroom discussions (sorry about the length of the link, but it's worth it): https://twitter.com/KvotheTheArcane/status/1610724704926539776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1610724704926539776%7Ctwgr%5E7da3082ef42cec579f5a65f36b7ff6c49c6a0ca9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org%2F2023%2F01%2F06%2Froaming-charges-76%2F
The video linked by John Rapko seems to make the following also a bit relevant:
Franz Neumann, "Behemoth: The structure and practice of National Socialism 1933-1944," notes that “German constitutional life is thus characterized by its utter shapelessnes,. . .” (p. 322). He goes on to argue, “It would be fatally wrong to consider this shapelessness a weakness. It is, indeed, a strength of the system. It makes it impossible for any opposition to overthrow the regime merely by occupying one institution or even several. None has power, each is powerful only if synchronized with a large number of others. It also allows the Leader to play off one group against another without being compelled to resort to any one institution or even having to change the institutional arrangements . . . In such a situation, political society can be utterly unorganized, political institutions can be formless and shapeless. The manipulations at the top are favored by the absence of any institutional limitations upon their arbitrary power” (p. 324).
In about that same place he mentions how differences among the competing gangsters could only be resolved by their Boss. So maybe it’s not so far fetched to see what’s going on as a bunch of Nazi wannabees whose Boss is failing to exercise his powers. Maybe another night of the long knives looms?
John Rapko,
Hilarious! I am going to forward the video to my handful of Republican friends.
The Democrats should start planning their Operation Overlord to retake the House forthwith.
Just a thought but any piece of legislation can be brought to the House floor with a discharge petition and the Dems have 212 of the 218 signatures required. This should be doable for things like the debt ceiling and defense/Ukraine bills.
The video is great and has been used for a few Trump/Rep memes.
Now that the drama in the House is over, and McCarthy has secured the vote for Speaker, watch the amazing performance below of Gershwin’s Rhapsody In Blue. From the opening sublime clarinet solo, to the exuberant performance by the pianist, it is being able to see and hear performances such as this which make life worth living, regardless what is happening in Washington. How could one human being create such a masterpiece, integrating clarinet, trombones, oboe, violins and piano into such an exhilarating musical composition?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U-IXWaapx4
Marc,
I'm a bit confused about what "free will" means, but in my confusion it seems that Gershwin writing Rhapsody in Blue would be a better example of whatever it is than the pianist playing the notes.
You could program a computer to follow the score and play the notes (and in the video we both watched, Professor Stewart as least denies that a computer could have free will), but it's almost impossible to imagine that a computer could be programmed to write a great piece of music such as Rhapsody in Blue.
Human creativity seems to me to be the best argument in favor of something which we could
call "free will". I know that free will generally involves the idea of moral responsibility, and I'm not sure what that is either, but clearly, we, human beings,
are capable of creating incredibly complex works of art and even incredibly complex relationships with other human beings, which seem like examples of "freedom" to me.
s. wallerstein,
OK, I'll settle for that.
Although I agreed with much of what Prof. Steward said, I did not agree with her that AI could not produce a cyborg which was sufficiently human to actually have free will, although she did appear to hedge her statement in this regard. As I said in the previous thread, I thought the panel discussion was excellent, and thank you for posting the link. (I did find it disappointing that some of the audience members asked question which were totally unrelated to the issue of free will, like the first woman who asked about rape and the law.)
An amazing performance of the Rhapsody, though.
Marc,
We agree for once and you're right: her last name is spelled "Steward", not "Stewart" as I wrote it.
Here’s another video of Ms. Buniatishvili performing Tchaivkovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1, the piece which Van Cliburn played in Moscow in 1958 to win the International Tchaikovsky Competition. I love seeing her hair fly as she pounds the keys.
You forgot to include the link.
Sorry. (Evidence that I lack the memory, let alone the skill, to perform a complicated musical composition which Ms. Buniatishvill makes look easy,)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U-IXWaapx4
Wrong link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msBK0fS4iWI
My incompetence is embarrassing.
I had a Khatia Buniatishvili period a few years ago. I came to find many of her interpretations a bit too 'willful', although not in any sense that would provide evidence for or against the existence of free will. I still love her version of Komitas's 'Shushiki', though one would not want to live without the magisterial version of Grigory Sokolov.--I must insist that when it comes to flying hair, Buniatishvili is a veritable statue compared with the sublime Jyoti Nooran, the hardest working woman in show business. Her 1-2 hour performances with her sister Sultana as the Nooran Sisters also show her as the single most intensely and directly communicative artist I've ever seen (there are many on YouTube). For a popular compilation of her way with hair, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPEkSnRgySg&ab_channel=woow_tv
Wild. As much as I like flying hair, I wouldn't want to be married to either of them.
Marc,
Alas, we disagree again. But the practical effect is the same: neither Khatia nor Jyoti has responded to my marriage proposals, including the billboards and skywriting.
You are a desperate man, John Rapko.
Post a Comment