It seems like a long time ago when I first heard of the Peter Principle, but I didn’t immediately see its relevance. I was in my second year as a young instructor in the Department of English, and I felt a bit intimidated by the older faculty, especially by those who had published a paper in some obscure periodical that no one, save some freshman in search of opinion on some literary work or author, would open and skim for key points to plagiarize. The senior faculty members, wearing or carrying the aegis of tenure like Zeus fighting the Titans, stood on Olympian chairmanships (it was a time before today’s PC term chairperson), dismissing the ideas of younger nontenured faculty members as unworthy of consideration, that is, of logical discussion. Yes, I was in awe of professors who had risen to positions of authority, including professors elevated to positions in administration, like deans. provosts, and university ombudsmen. But slowly, the term Peter Principle began to shade the brilliance I had once seen emanating from those esteemed grey heads. I realized what Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull had postulated in their 1969 book might be more than a satirical take on organizational hierarchies. * Many people in positions of authority in educational and governmental organizations had risen to the level of their incompetence. That’s the principle.


Looking back, I now see how Peter came to formulate his principle. He had worked in a Canadian school about which he writes, “During the first year of teaching I was upset to find that a number of teachers, school principals, supervisors and superintendents appeared to be unaware of their professional responsibilities and incompetent in executing their duties” [Italics mine]. And there I was, the young professor slowly coming to the same realization as the veil of high expectation slipped off my enthralled brain. These older professors I initially held in high esteem might have been good or just average in the classroom while sitting on some little publication and reading yellowed notes to students, but they were far from exhibiting Olympian grandeur and wielding Zeus’ bolt. And they were even farther from knowing how to handle practical matters, steeped as they were in pretension born of promotions by other academics—many of those promotions based on croneyism and seniority.


I now understand what I didn’t understand as a young professor: There’s no organization more likely to practice the Peter Principle than an educational system—unless it is a government agency—where accountability and merit often give way to croneyism and seniority. Live long enough, become king. Such meritless promotion is an endemic process in the halls of liberal academia. Those who would feign logic and knowledge before the public are typically guilty in those hallowed halls of parochial, rather than cosmopolitan,  thinking. Those competent to teach grammar or literature, and whose financial experience rests in balancing a household checkbook, rise to positions in management that only a Wharton school graduate should handle, overseeing institutions with annual budgets that range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars.


Enter Barack Obama


There’s a corollary to the Peter Principle. Just call it the Principle of Being There. I believe it is the driving principle of the Democratic Party.


Remember Barack Obama? Remember his campaign against Hilary Clinton? It was Chris Matthews, political Left-wing pundit and Clinton supporter, who asked Obama supporter State Senator Kirk Watson to name Obama’s accomplishments.  Watson dodged the question as every Obama supporter subsequently dodged the question. Obama had been a community organizer (whatever that means). His accomplishments were as Olympian as those single publications by members of my English Department. Essentially, Obama was as qualified to become President as Peter Sellers was to become Presidential advisor as the character Chance in the movie Being There (1979). In the movie Sellers plays a simple gardener named Chance who through a series of circumstances and misunderstandings becomes Chauncey Gardiner, a man sought after for advice. By virtue of his just being there in the right place at the right time, he rises to prominence.


Loyalty over Truth


And then, as the train of enthusiasm rolled Obama to the to the Grand Central of the Democratic ticket, the same Chris Matthews, loyal to his Democratic Party, sang Obama’s praises, even singing about some “tingling” going up his leg as Obama spoke. Matthews asked no more penetrating questions about accomplishments and demonstrated abilities. Obama had been elevated, had risen to the pinnacle of authority and power, had become godlike. It was an apotheosis of a person whose life before he became State Senator, Federal Senator,  and President consisted mainly of just “being there.” Right place, right time, however.


And once elevated, Obama gave a half billion dollars to Solyndra, which went belly-up  after 18 months, added through his eight years some ten trillion dollars to the national debt, quashed the great energy producers through a war on coal, oil, and gas while giving Brazil two billion dollars for their offshore drilling, and oversaw (or overlooked) a worsening border crisis. While Obama was in office, Putin moved into Crimea, Iran finagled a nuclear arms agreement that gained release of its frozen assets worth billions of dollars without guaranteeing it would stop nuclear research, and the US committed to the Paris Agreement on climate that would impose stifling restrictions on the American energy sector, and thus, on the American economy. Also, under Obama’s reign, the Deep State that fabricated the Russian Collusion Hoax flourished, and a healthcare system was driven toward today’s premiums that are three times what they were before his presidency.


Do those accomplishments speak competence or incompetence? Is he not the prime example of the Peter Principle? Actually, no. There’s a new prime example.


Enter Biden and Harris


So, Obama arguably rose to a position of authority simply on the basis of being there. Or was it on the basis of Biden’s assessment? As he said, ”I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” So, the “clean African-American” was pulled from the crowd of young Chicago Democrats to give a speech at the DNC in a nationally televised appearance that catapulted him into the limelight. Right place, right time. Think of Obama as a real life, but smarter, version of Chance, the gardener, advisor to the wealthy and politically powerful.


And that seems to be where we are with Kamala Harris—not to mention where we have been with Joe Biden, who rose to the top mostly by virtue of just being there for decades. Harris was a failed presidential candidate rejected by her party who rose by a Biden fiat to become VP and now Democrat Presidential candidate. Her accomplishments? Well, the contemporary versions of Chris Matthews can’t get past the tingling running up their legs to ask. For weeks they’ve jumped on the Harris bandwagon, but their only defense of her lies in statements like “We hate Trump,” “Trump’s s dictator,” and “Trump’s a felon.” Has anyone touted her accomplishments? A simple list would help.


The Principle of Bring There and the Peter Principle: Aren’t both principles apropos of the current choice of the Democrat Party?


*Peter and Hull. 1969. The Peter Principle. William Morrow and Company.

Escape


After a few years of Woke Far Leftness, some 80,174 New Zealanders recently decided to emigrate. Remind you of California in recent years of high taxation, increasing crime and homelessness, power outages, and stifling regulations?*


Almost seven million Venezuelans have left their country since 2014, and many more will probably leave if Maduro stays in power—many came to the US and more will like come. Ah! Socialism and Leftism, the miracle cures for all that ails the West’s economies. Not.


Come on, Now, What’s Wrong with a Little Socialism?


Attempts to quash speech and other freedoms, often attributed to people on the Right by the Press and liberal USA coast dwellers, have now become the modus operandi and goals of the Left. Take the attempted and successful quashing by the US government of conservative speech in American media and social media over the past few years as a foreshadowing of what lies ahead for Americans. Take a warning from the UK that the quashing isn’t restricted to America. Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds signalled that the new Government would consider changes to the Online Safety Act designed to regulate social media companies.”** That’s not just a promise to jail people involved in the recent riots, it’s “a reminder to everyone that whether you’re directly involved or whether you’re remotely involved, you’re culpable, and you will be put before the courts if you’ve broken the law.” Yeah, it’s one of those free speech problems that has the left twisted more than a Klein bottle. Convoluted thinking? You bet.


The Klein Bottle of Modern Leftist  Thinking


The topology of a Klein bottle challenges our intuitive thinking. It’s a non-orientable surface that seems to defy our sense of logic with its twists and turns and convoluted interior. That’s the current political and social manifold of the Left. And it’s a good example of psychological projection. Declaring the Right to be Fascist, the Left embodies a resurrected Mussolini through their efforts to control speech and behavior. Can anyone say “hypocrisy”?


Take the political Left’s and mainstream media’s responses to riots and civil disobedience in America and Britain as an example. Apparently, riots such as those centered in Missouri, Oregon, and Washington or the destruction and social disturbance of Occupy Wall Streeters in NYC have Leftist blessing and social media praise, whereas any public display—even those Tea Party peaceful protests—by conservatives generates calls for censorship and punishment.


Speech isn’t protected if it is conservative. Nothing illustrates this more than the Left’s attempt to quash Elon Musk, especially after his announcement that he would talk to Trump on X.  Washington Post journalist Cleve Wootson Jr. asked the White House’s Press secretary what it was doing to stop “the misinformation,” as he termed it. ***


Wootson, Jr., and other Leftists can’t see the Klein bottle of their thinking. Their world lies on a single surface whose twists of contradiction and hypocrisy seem beyond their comprehension. That a reporter would ask how the WH intends to control free speech is an indication of how the social snd political worlds have become convoluted.


The people who left New Zealand, Venezuela, and California somehow found a way to escape the Klein bottle of socialism—leaving their homes You might not have to leave yours, but you might start studying the math of topology just in case you are forced to live on the surface of a Leftist Klein bottle.   




*Lucy Craymer, Reuters. Tue, Aug 13, 2024. People leave New Zealand in record numbers as economy bites. Online at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-leave-zealand-record-numbers-061232193.html


**The Standard. Online at: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/elon-musk-riots-uk-social-media-twitter-x-keir-starmer-asylum-seeker-b1175637.html


***AllSides: Online under title: WaPo Journo Asks How Biden-Harris Admin Can Quash Trump-Musk Interview and online also at  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2024/08/13/washington-post-reporter-asked-the-white-house-an-unhinged-question-about-trump-and-musk-n2643327

Recall those days in high school geometry class when you had to prove some shape or angle on the basis of Euclid’s postulates? You’re in a political geometry class right now, and you’ve been given one of the toughest geometry problems: Disprove the parallel postulate.


The Euclidean assumption is that two lines emanating from a common line and both lying perpendicular to that common line (I.e., at right angles) will continue forever without touching, basically railroad tracks running into infinity, or, at least to Betelgeuse. Yeah, like railroad tracks, there’s a fundamental necessity that the lines can neither cross nor diverge.


Well, Kamala Harris wants you to forget the postulate. She wants you to believe that the lines don’t run parallel, but do (or will) diverge and converge.


Huh?


Yes, Harris wants you to believe that in her presidency, she will take a path that diverges from Biden-Harris policies of the past four years, such as open border, fecklessness in the face of Iran, Russia, and China, and over-regulation and mandates killing the energy sector. In Harris’s universe, political geometry is more Riemannian than Euclidean.


She wants you to accept the postulate that her future administration will diverge from her past administration. At the same time, on issues like the open border, she wants you to assume that she can solve the very problem she created by converging on the Trump border policy—and even of late on the Trump policy of eliminating tax on tips.


One of the reasons that Euclid’s geometry has worked for two millennia is that his underlying assumptions are difficult, if not impossible, to disprove. And that troublesome “parallel lines postulate” is toughest of all.


Want a postulate that seems unshakeable? A Harris Administration will parallel a Biden-Harris Administration. It won’t diverge from its past.


Unfortunately, there are many Americans who either failed geometry class or failed to learn the practical application of its lessons and way of thinking. True, all thinking starts with the unprovable, with some axiom. Logic doesn’t ultimately rest on logic, but we humans have to start our thinking somewhere, and that somewhere is an axiom.


AXIOM: A Harris future will parallel a Harris past.

This is August in the Northern Hemisphere. I don’t know whether or not the following facts are taught in schools, but August is on average one of the hotter months, and in many locations, also among the drier months.


Summer’s been the season since the Solstice in June, when the Sun, from our perspective reached its apex (but not zenith) in the dome of our sky. And whereas it’s true that since the Solstice, the Sun’s angle has been declining, it is also true that the buildup of heat actually started way back in December with the Winter Solstice. With months of longer days and increasingly higher Sun, Earth’s surface has warmed, and the heat will take months to dissipate as the days grow shorter. Thus, there’s no abrupt end of summer on America’s Memorial Day. Closures of swimming pools leave plenty of hot September days un-enjoyed.


The Reason for the Seasons


This cycle of seasonal heating and cooling has occurred ever since Earth, early in its formation, was hit by a Mars-size planetoid that knocked it over relative to the plane of its orbit by some 23.5 degrees, an angle that changes cyclically. In short, summer heat and winter cold are the product of Earth’s tilt, which also makes winter in the Southern Hemisphere coincide with summer in the Northern Hemisphere. And—bonus fact here—the relative importance of that tilt is significant in the context of Earth’s orbital positions of aphelion and perihelion, the former occurring during the Northern Hemisphere’s summer. In other words, we Northern Hemisphere residents are three million miles farther from the Sun in summer than we are in winter.


‘Nugh said, I think on the cause of summer’s accumulated surface heat that warms the bottom of the atmosphere. “No,” you say, “my teachers never covered that stuff or if they did, I wasn’t listening.”


Other Influences


One can add to the info some peripheral influences on temperatures: Latitude is chief among them because Earth’s surface lies on the arc of a sphere. Then land-water distribution because water has a higher specific heat than land (it takes longer to heat and longer to cool). And while we’re mentioning that climate and weather parameter, we should note continentality: The farther inland, the wider the ranges in temperature, with, for example, interior USA reaching higher summertime temperatures and colder wintertime temperatures than coastal USA., which has the moderating effect of water. Next: Altitude. Tops of mountains cooler than lowlands. Add in this mix, the albedo. Light colored surfaces like the Sahara’s sands or Greenland’s ice reflect solar energy, whereas dark green rainforests are more absorbent of that energy. Other influences include prevailing wind systems, ocean currents, and cloud cover. The Prevailing Westerlies of the Northern Hemisphere compound the effect of altitude. Thus, the western side of Mt Whitney and the Sierra Nevada get more precipitation than the eastern side, where America’s hottest and driest desert lies in the “rain shadow.” Walla! Sequoia Forest on the western windward side and Death Valley and the Mojave on the Eastern lee side, where downslope winds dry out and heat up as they roll off the eastern slopes.


There’s more to consider, of course, but why write any of this?


Consider this headline in the LA Times: “July was California's hottest month ever, as climate warms to dangerous new extremes” (Grace Toohey Thu, August 8, 2024 at 3:15 PM EDT) * Consider this fact buried in the story: “The agency's statewide climate data goes back to 1895.” That’s 129 years of Earth’s 4.5+ billion-year history. That's  0.0000000266%. Is Earth currently warming? Or, is the warm July just a fluctuation in weather on a planet whose temperature has trended upward since the melting of the great ice sheets that covered most of Canada's provinces and the northern US states. And how do a single month's temperature data figure into the 50-million-year decline in temperature since the Eocene or into the pattern of glacial and interglacial periods of the last 2.5 million years?


Consider, also, the influences on temperature I mentioned above and throw in other influences, such as seasonal semipermanent High and Low pressure systems and oscillations that couple ocean temperature to atmosphere.** We just rode an El Niño through a rainy Florida in 2024. Are we going into a period during which an El Niña dominates?


Earth Had Weather before 1895


Consider that during that brief 129-year span, some decades have been drier or hotter than others. Are we looking at climate or weather. Given a time machine, would the climate alarmists be astounded at the drought that decimated the Hopi (Anasazi) before anyone kept daily records? At the heat of the Medieval or Roman warm periods? At the persistent cold of the Little Ice Age or Younger Dryas? At the oppressive heat during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum?


Just askin’.    


*Online at https://www.yahoo.com/news/july-californias-hottest-month-ever-191501225.html 

**Summer's Atlantic "Bermuda High," for example, or the Low that forms off the western coast of India during summer and that directs moisture onto the subcontinent, where it rains over the Deccan Plateau and subsequently floods the western lowlands.

In Memoriam: On the Resignations of Susan Chang-Kim, Matthew Patashnick and Cristen Kromm,
the Three Columbia Deans Whose Antisemitic Tropes Got Them Fired. *


If Murray, Akroyd, Ramis, too **
Would bust the ghosts of deans eschewed,
I’d guess they would return to schools,
Columbia, i.e., where recent fools
Once haughty, writing tropes
Like silly teens so high on dopes
Repeated all the worn cliches
That students shouted on the lawn
From dark midnight till early dawn,
Now in the new year, they are gone.
Who? You ask. Both fools and tools,
Manipulated, defying rules.
Remember last year’s college camps
That cluttered lawns and dews and damps?
Remember all simplistic talks
Of genocide on campus walks?
Recall three deans regarded Jews
As privileged whites, dismissed their views,
And their concerns and their real fright
To walk on campus in the night?
Those deans are gone, but in their wake
Their ghosts will reappear to Jews
Will paint graffiti: Hakenkreuz,
The Nazi symbol of the Left.
The feelings then will haunt again
In academia’s hallowed den.
So, Murray, Akroyd, Ramis, too,
Have yet another job to do,
To exorcise the hateful ghosts
That roam the schools along the coasts.
Their job is big and will not end
In every age it will impend
As hate’s the real ghost that haunts on.
Just look this year on campus lawn
To see the ghosts of Nazis past
Persist, indeed, and peace outlast.
The hate that ran through many ages
Persists again, indeed it rages.
The Busters’ work will never cease.
The Jews will never live in peace.


*Katherine Donlevy, US News. August 8, 2024. Online at https://nypost.com/2024/08/08/us-news/3-columbia-university-deans-resign-after-antisemitic-tropes-texts-scandal-report/


**Columbia University was one of the film locations for the original Ghostbusters.

Yesterday, a TV news channel showed a video of an adoring crowd cheering on Kamala Harris and shaking their heads affirmatively as she said she would make inflation her priority "on day one." Putting aside that Biden-Harris policies caused the inflation she promises to address in some as yet un-articulated manner, I'll note that the same TV channel has shown videos of enthusiastic crowds at a Trump rally as he promised to reduce the same inflationary spiral. I would like you to put aside the two candidates' promises and focus instead on the adoration and enthusiasm. The videos brought to mind a blog I posted on 5/30/2015 titled "Take Me to Your Leader." I repost it here: 

An alien sees a planet with water, assumes it houses life, and lands in your backyard. Then the alien, approaching you as you drink your morning coffee on the patio, says in your language, “Take me to your leader.”

Taking a sip of the coffee while it is still hot, you, as a native Earthling, say, “I don’t have one. I am my own leader.”

Would you say that? Really? I hope so, but in what context would you proclaim to be self-led? You are, as you must surely realize, a product of inculcations beyond your ability to recognize or count: Influences from crib to current age both subtle and overt. And in this age of social media and mainstream media influencers, now including AI influencers, can you recognize when you are more follower than leader?  

Listen today to the voices of your fellow Earthlings. Many around you proclaim their “individuality.” What do those Earthlings mean when they say they are individuals? What constitutes the individuality they seem to cherish and defend with mental, emotional, and physical tools? Once defined, does that individuality ever succumb to disintegration, to dissolving like sugar in hot coffee? Are there people who are not “individuals”?

What’s that you say? Yes? But you are different, right?

If you recognize the individuality of others “dissolving like sugar in hot coffee” as they adoringly shake their heads at a political rally, can you recognize in yourself that same process that results in your own individuality dissolving in a solution of society?

​No? Not even a little dissolution? Be honest here. When you try to pin down the nature of individuality, you run into some difficulty and maybe into some frustration.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to upset you; rather, I was just posing the question asked by a hypothetical alien. To what degree would you insist, “I am my own leader”? Is such self-leadership possible? if so, do you see it in your thinking and behavior? 

​Strangers, call them Apple and Orange, talk on a train.

Apple: So, where’re you headin’?
Orange: Work. I work at Lawrence Livermore Lab.
Apple: Wow! Aren’t you busy on the cutting edge of nuclear stuff?
Orange: Yes, I guess you could say that.
Apple: So, I’m guessing you are some sort of nuclear physicist, maybe working on fusion or on some gizmo to defend the country against a North Korean nuclear attack on the West Coast.
Orange: Well, no. Actually I’m a lawyer. I work in the IDEA office.
Apple: I-D-E-A? What’s that mean. No, wait! Let me guess. You come up with the ideas for nuclear experiments and new materials.
Orange: Well, no, again. I’m more into overseeing the lab’s compliance with California standards on inclusion, diversity, equity, and accountablity. I work closely with all the HR staff.
Apple: Missed opportunity there! I would have thought that a nuclear physics lab’s employees were exclusively dedicated to practical applications of technology and science for the good of the nation. Lawrence Livermore is a national lab like Argonne, isn’t it? Gets federal funding, right? Hold on, let me look you guys up…Says here on your website your mission is applying “cutting-edge science and technology to achieve breakthroughs in nuclear deterrence, counterterrorism and nonproliferation, defense and intelligence and energy and environmental security.”
Orange: Yes, well, the lab is big and has many employees. You can read on the website that we even have people devoted to understanding “the global climate system, develop technologies to reduce accumulation of greenhouse gases and pursue the domestic production and supply of affordable, clean energy delivered across a secure and sustainable infrastructure.” So, we have a diverse employee makeup. That’s where I come in.
Apple: On climate?
Orange: No, no, no, on diversity, inclusion, equity, and accountability. And my office is good at it. We just received an award. Look, here’s the Press release on the award from the State Bar of California “in recognition of our work in inclusion, diversity, equity, and accountability.” We got the award because Lawrence Livermore’s “IDEA Office fosters a workplace culture that is inclusive, collaborative and supportive of multi-disciplinary teams to solve challenges in national security. The core beliefs of LLNL’s IDEA Office embraces people with all their unique abilities and perspectives so they can succeed in reaching their full potential at the Laboratory.”
Apple: I would think that diversity of ideas would drive the lab’s work. What’s equity have to do with science? So, do you mean to tell me that my tax dollars that could go exclusively to practical applications of science for the defense and betterment on the nation go to a social issue? I’m glad you have a job, but honestly, I can’t see Russia building a lab for nuclear research and having its scientists and engineers concerned about equity and inclusion, or even about diversity, as long as the group comes up with practical applications of their science—for that I can see diverse people with diverse ideas because of their ideas, but not because of their ethnic origin. I wonder whether Russia would have a lawyer in a lab.
Orange: Look, equity is important.
Apple: Meaning what in a lab? I can understand equality of opportunity to pursue ideas and experiments, but outcomes in science aren’t dependent on the scientist’s feelings of self-worth.
Orange: So, what is your line of work?
Apple: I make holes where there were no holes.
Orange: What?
Apple: Okay, in other words, I’m a ditch digger. In my business, we don’t look at equity. The person who makes the biggest or longest holes is recognized as the best and given the most responsibility. That’s what accountability means in ditch digging.
Orange: Is this a joke? Are you joking?
Apple: I work for a gas company laying pipelines. No one can lay a pipe unless I make a hole. Pretty much everyone is dependent on my completing that task. That’s the only measurement of success, making a long hole. No hole, no pipeline. The best backhoe operator is the best. No equity stuff. I’m accountable for making a hole. If I don’t make one, I’m gone. Fired. No questions, no lawyers, no equity involved. Simple: at the end of the day there is a hole or there isn’t a hole.

Nothing to see here; move along.

August 5, 2024, is a date that will live in quietude in spite of these headlines:


Iran bombs a US military base, injuring US soldiers, and continues to threaten Israel.

U.S. Sends More Military to Middle East Amid Threats of Retaliation After Israel’s Assassinations.

Sudan’s paramilitary RSF continues deadly attack on El Fasher as U.N. warns famine could spread.

Dispute over Venezuela’s election results deepens as opposition claims It won by 2X the vote count; many Venezuelans say they will leave country—probably for USA, where a couple of hundred thousand have already entered over the past three years.

Pentagon Chief Lloyd Austin revokes plea deal for 9/11 Guantánamo prisoners.

Southern states Brace for Hurricane Debby as it makes landfall in Florida.

Al-Shabab claims Mogadishu beach attack that killed 37.

The Dow Jones industrial average fell 1,033 points, the worst day in nearly two years.

From the White House— i.e., the President and Vice President— we heard………..


Today is August 6, 2024. Are you, as I am, eagerly awaiting a statement or word salad on these and other incidents headlining US and world newspapers?

Now, I Know What You Are Thinking

Now, I know what you are thinking. Why is this guy now focusing on daily news like some podcaster?
Whereas it is true that I have in these couple thousand essays touched on current events and other topics found in the back pages of the Press, I have largely done so in the context of some larger issue, like socialism vs. capitalism, evil vs. morality, common sense vs. common feelings, and science vs. belief. But today struck me as different because a large number of journalists and pundits have not raced to discover the US’s official stand on these matters.

One might guess that the action of Lloyd Austin would have by itself driven reporters to demand statements from the Executive Branch. Austin’s action did center on the 9—11 attacks that killed thousands, with many of their surviving families still suffering from their deaths by the umbrella group whose offshoot Al-Shabab just killed 37 and wounded hundreds on a Mogadishu beach. Al Qaeda still functions. That issue alone should have warranted a statement from the WH, especially in light of a report from the Judiciary Committee that the Biden-Harris Administration has released into the United States at least 99 potential terrorists since January 2021.

The Danger of an Agenda-Driven Press

So, in deference to your desire for more than a “podcast,” I’ll note that the willful restraint by the Press to hold the Biden-Harris Administration’s feet to the fires of transparency and explanation as they were eager to do under the Bush and Trump administrations, has quashed knowledge and allowed the current administration to run free from rational justification. Certainly, it has not received probing followup questions.

​It is the news media that willingly acquiesces to both misinformation and secrecy.

I’m guessing that even before ancient Greeks circulated the tale of mythical Narcissus and before the first artificial reflective surfaces, humans were concerned about their appearance. Maybe that concern is reflected in some as yet undiscovered cave painting. I’m guessing. Why? Our species is obsessed with appearance.


Part of that concern stems in part, I believe, from our gregarious nature and part from our desire for convenience and comfort. The former relates us in society; the latter, self-relates. Think of the difference between—in some quarters there will be the gnashing of teeth over the following analog—having long hair fixed in a scrunchy or pinned up on a hot day versus hair fixed in a beauty salon for a formal evening out.  We do, at times, merge comfort, social norms, and convenience, but in numerous settings, comfort elicits frown-faces of judgement. As one whose hair began its lifelong vacation when I was just 17 but who had hair before then, I can appreciate the dilemma of people with long hair who choose to get relief in summertime but who want to maintain a habitual social image.


Social Norms vs Reality


As a bald person, I was intrigued by the story about Puerto Rico’s new law banning discrimination against hair styles. In a land of eternal heat, long hair can be uncomfortable. But how casual or convenient does one style hair? Depends on the circumstance, I suppose.


HR job interviewers most likely conduct sessions with job applicants with appearance  conforming to social norms and their particular company’s ideals in mind. Bank tellers and vice presidents usually don’t sport a “Hippy” disheveled look. I was unaware, however, that hairstyle discrimination was such a matter of concern that 26 US states, and now the Territory of Puerto Rico, had enacted laws against it, all modeled on California’s CROWN Act, which stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair.”


Is There a Problem? Only in the Eyes of the Beholder


If hairstyle is problematic feature, what other human features are even more problematic in the eyes of society and media? Skin color, of course, especially in the liberal media where race is an obsession.


Kamala’s skin currently qualifies as “Black” in the eyes of the liberal Press, whereas Ulsha’s skin is “Caucasian-brownish” in their eyes. Yet, both have Indian genes, Harris’s heritage tracing to southeastern India’s Tamil Nadu on her mother’s side and to her father’s maternal grandmother Iris Finegan and his paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown). Usha’s heritage also derives from southeastern India, albeit not from Tamil Nadu, but rather from neighboring Andhra Pradesh. Yeah. You get it. There’s a commonality: Southeastern India. * And there’s a difference: Ireland. But in the eyes of the liberal Press, Kamala is decidedly—as Obama was labeled—“Black” and spoken of with respect, whereas Usha doesn’t get the same respect. For hypocrites, race makes a difference, and race doesn’t make a difference.


The liberal Press can’t see the commonality or the difference. That the liberal media’s pundits only see humans through a political lens tells the tale of an emotional approach to politicians and those associated with them. They are both concerned and unconcerned about race, depending upon, of course, the political association. Thus, the big uproar when Trump recently said, “I didn’t know she was ‘Black’.” Could he have gotten his idea from Kamala’s appearance on a cooking show during which she laid claim to her Indian heritage?*** Did those Irish ancestors taint his understanding? The pundits have gone full throttle on correcting his “faulty” notion.


Heritage and Hairstyle, Yes, Policy, No


So, we’ve been silly about ourselves for thousands of years, noting the slightest variations in appearance and using those variations—from personal fashion to skin color— as bases for evaluation and worth. Ideas, behaviors, and accomplishments take a backseat to superficial characteristics, especially in modern politics framed as they are by 24/7 talking heads with ubiquity.


The things that concern us about individuals and groups are frequently the things that contribute little to ability and accomplishment. The things that concern us are frequently those that have nothing to do with practical matters like guiding a country toward ever-increasing prosperity. Black, white, brown, or burnt siena, long hair, short hair, braided hair, those colors and hairstyles do not guarantee any company or country prosperity.

• Andrea Flores. LA Times. Aug. 1, 2024 4:33 PM PT Online at: https://www.latimes.com/delos/story/2024-08-01/puerto-rico-ban-discrimination-protective-hairstyles-crown-act
• *Vatteluttu, the script of the Tamil, is to my untrained eye very similar to the script of Telegu. My ignorance of both languages prohibits me from speculating with confidence, but I’ll hazard that the ancestors of both women could have understood one another in the same way that Swedes and Danes can understand even without speaking one another’s language. I also hazard that fewer than six degrees separate Kamala and Usha.
• * * YouTube “Kamala Harris & Mindy Kaling Cook Masala Dosa”