Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia on Sunday. The F.B.I. informed Congress on Sunday that it has not changed its conclusions about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state. (The New York Times)
“WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, told Congress on Sunday that he had seen no evidence in a recently discovered trove of emails to change his conclusion that Hillary Clinton should face no charges over her handling of classified information.” (The New York Times)
What is particularly shocking in this story is not only the timing of Mr Comey’s decision to re-open the investigation into Mrs Clinton’s emails, but the fact that Mr Comey knew that re-opening the investigation would not show criminal wrongdoing on the part of Mrs Clinton, but would give Mr Trump an advantage.
It was obstructionism, i.e. putting obstacles in the way of a nominee, and it was political. Mr Comey gave Mr Trump an advantage. Mr Comey all but removed Mrs Clinton’s bid to the presidency of the United States by suggesting partisanship.
It is for the American electorate to choose the President of the United States, not the FBI. By announcing it was re-opening its investigation regarding emails sent from her personal computer, the FBI put Mrs Clinton under a cloud of suspicion. She is a strong woman, but the stress the announcement generated was harmful.
Colin Powell
Donald Trump is a “national disgrace,”
Donald Trump is an “international pariah,”
Mrs Clinton is an “experienced” politician.
Retired General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is not an admirer of Mrs Clinton, has stated that he would vote for her because she is an experienced politician. He has called Donald Trump a “national disgrace” and “international pariah.” If Donald Trump is a “national disgrace” and an “international pariah,” voting for him makes no sense. One may as well jump off a plane without a parachute.
I share Mr Powell’s view. Mrs Clinton is a veteran politician and a former Secretary of State. She is “by leaps and bounds” the more qualified nominee. As for Donald Trump, evidence points to his suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. If Mr Trump believes he can be President of the United States without being elected, he is indeed a very sick man. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is relatively easy to detect. Narcissists care for one person only, their person.
Pascal
Blaise Pascal
Colin Powell‘s attitude reminds me of Pascal’s Wager. Blaise Pascal (19 June 1623 – 19 August 1662) was a mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and a very devout man. His best-known work is entitled Les Pensées, Thoughts, which includes Pascal’s wager.
As a mathematician, Blaise Pascal, in collaboration with Pierre de Fermat, developed the probability theory, or le calcul des probabilités, which has to do with calculating the odds. In the case of Pascal’s Wager, le pari fatal, the discussion is about the existence of God. Pascal states that if one does not believe in God and does not live a virtuous life, one may spend an eternity in hell. Not believing in God could therefore lead to “infinite losses.” On the other hand, one who chooses to believe in God and lives a virtuous life may suffer limited or “finite losses,” i.e the virtuous have to make certain sacrifices. Consequently, Blaise Pascal proposes that the rational choice is to wager that God exists, as one may avoid “infinite losses.” (See Pascal’s Wager, Wikipedia)
In other words, by electing Donald Trump, one has everything to lose. Not so if Mrs Clinton is elected. One may not be an “admirer” of Mrs Clinton—as noted Colin Powell isn’t, but he will vote for her because she knows what she is doing. She is competent. The security of the United States and the world is very much at stake in this election because one nominee is unfit to perform the role he is seeking. If Americans elect Mr Trump, they will empower a Narcissistic ignoramus. Voting for Donald Trump doesn’t even begin to make sense.
Platform & Programme
I have written several times that Donald Trump has failed to present a coherent platform or program. He doesn’t, except for despicable goals.
Normally, I avoid redundancy, but I am quoting New Yorker journalist Adam Gopnik for the second time. Mr Gopnik writes that:
His [Mr Trump’s] platform is resentment and his program is revenge, and that is an ideology with many faces and one name. This is fascism with an American face.
PRESS ON “The Editorialists Have Spoken… ” TO READ THE ARTICLE
The United States is a Democracy
Americans live in a democracy and cannot allow anyone to take over the presidency, without being elected to the position. Such a person would be a dictator, as was Adolf Hitler.
He would, in other words, exercise absolute power over the American people, depriving them of what has made America great: the freedom to choose their leaders and to live a private life.
Who would have thought, a year ago, that Donald Trump would be the Republicans’ nominee for the presidency of the United States? Americans have been taken by surprise. Could this be an American Brexit?
Conclusion
I’m with Colin Powell. If I were an American citizen, which I am not, I would vote for Hillary Clinton because she is the competent candidate, not Donald Trump.
Remember that Donald Trump
wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans from entering the United States;
that he will not allow Muslims into the United States;
this is how he will deal with the Migrant Crisis brought about by Isis and Autocratic regimes;
that he is a racist, endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan;
that he does not like women, he’s a misogynist, has assaulted women and may have raped a 13-year old;
“In this depraved campaign season, it’s unclear whether Trump’s support from white supremacists will have a positive or negative effect on his campaign.”
PHOTOGRAPH BY DAVID J. PHILLIP / AP (The New Yorker)
Just as we were expecting Mrs Clinton to lose her bid for the presidency of the United States, rumours are circulating that Mr Trump may have raped a 13-year-old and then threatened to kill her if she told.
Such matters have to be investigated. One is innocent until proven guilty and to this rule there can be no exception, but rape, however, is a criminal offence. I suspect, moreover, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation will have to investigate allegations of connivance between Mr Trump and the Kremlin. There is considerable fear outside the United States that Mr Trump will be elected into the office of President of the United States. The Ku Klux Klan, no less, has endorsed his candidacy.
President Obama criticized Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey for re-opening the investigation into Mrs Clinton’s emails. Mrs Clinton used her personal computer to send emails in her professional capacity as United States’ Secretary of State. It is not a secure way of sending emails. Mrs Clinton has stated that she was not directed not to use her personal computer, but that she is accepting full responsibility for her actions. Moreover, Hillary Clinton’s emails were investigated and she was cleared.
Consequently, when FBI Director James Comey announced he was re-opening the investigation into Mrs Clinton’s email, the earth shook. He had put Mrs Clinton at a disadvantage in an election where voters do not have a choice. The alternative is Mr Trump, which is the unthinkable. By re-opening the investigation, Mr Comey broke a protocol. It was too late. I saw a figure, but could not trace my way back to the source. However, if my memory serves me well, the figure was 60 days and I had read the New York Times and The New Yorker.
The protocol applies to governmental agencies, such as the FBI, and it is used to protectthe candidates, the electorate and, ultimately, democracy. Consider, for instance, that a voter may be persuaded not to vote for the candidate of his or her choice, only to learn that the candidate of his or her choice was the better candidate. It is easy to poison the mind of voters. Mr Comey failed to protect Americans.
Newspapers can disclose news, which is how I learned about the possible rape of a 13-year old. In this matter, timing is again an issue. Mr Trump’s victim, if indeed he raped a 13-year old, should have spoken earlier, but she reported that Mr Trump told her he would kill her if she talked. The word “killing” may have been used metaphorically, but to the victim, it was a genuine threat and the ultimate form of intimidation. Besides, it is a known fact that Mr Trump is a sexual predator.
It is also a known fact that Mr Trump is a liar, but would he lie to a young woman who could ruin his reputation and career? I doubt it. If he is elected to the presidency the United States, Americans will have a liar as president and commander-in-chief and Mr Trump may have lied his way out of a conviction: rape. He can afford the very best lawyers.
Hillary and Bill Clinton, PHOTOGRAPH BY JUSTIN SULLIVAN / GETTY
Two Investigations
The plot thickens. I was under the impression that the FBI investigation was about Mrs Clinton’s emails, which it may be at the moment. However, the FBI is also investigating the Clinton’s, or “so-called ties” between Hillary and Bill Clinton. Specifically, they are investigating the Clinton Foundation. Yet we are told that emails are being investigated.
“Dropping a bombshell less than a week before the Presidential election, the F. B. I. Director James Comey revealed on Wednesday that the Bureau was investigating Hillary Clinton’s ties to Bill Clinton.”
I should tell why the FBI could not investigate the new cache of emails earlier than it did. There was a formality the FBI could not skip. What is it, precisely, that the FBI could not investigate before 8 November 2016, the day of the election? It seems a witch hunt the purpose of which would be to eliminate Mrs Clinton and elevate Donald Trump to the presidency as he wishes, without an election.
“To say that they are investigating so-called ties between Hillary and Bill Clinton while offering no specifics about what those ties might be is unconscionable this close to an election,” Podesta told CNN. John Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.
In my last post, I asked Who (and how) had put the FBI up to such shenanigans as re-opening an investigation days before an election and possibly sabotaging the better candidate’s campaign thus empowering an ignoramus and a man who cannot contain himself. If a man feels free to assault women, he will feel free to assault the world. Whoever put the FBI up to re-opening an investigation into Mrs Clinton’s emails is an unconscionable individual.
From my perspective, Americans are currently being denied the right to elect their president and Mr Trump, who will take them to a “new age of endarkenment” is being foisted on them. We know the “how,” a breech of protocol, but the saboteur has not been identified.
Mrs Clinton used the wrong computer, but as I wrote in my last post, she has devoted a life time to the well-being and the security of all Americans. Once he is in office, Mr Trump will do away with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. This is very wrong. Citizens pay taxes and, in return, their government ensures their security. No one is omitted. Leaders negotiate a Social Contract with the citizens of a country, which is not happening in this particular election. This election isn’t an election.
Donald Trump behaves exactly how you would expect an American fascist to act. PHOTOGRAPH BY MANDEL NGAN / AFP / GETTY
I wrote that he did not have a platform, a program, but he does. He has a platform and a program, but it is of a bitter savour.
His platform is resentment and his program is revenge, and that is an ideology with many faces and one name. This is fascism with an American face.
“The truth is that Trump’s “positions” on specific issues are more or less a matter of chance and whim and impulse (Of course women should be punished for having abortions! Ten minutes later: no, they shouldn’t) while his actual ideology, the song he sings every day, the one those listeners and followers gleefully vibrate to, is one anthem, and it is the sound of the authoritarian and anti-democratic impulses Americans have rejected since the founding of this country. Call them what you will—populist authoritarianism or extreme-right-wing ethno-nationalism—the active agents within a Trump speech and energizing a Trump rally are always the same: the worship of power in its most brutal and authoritarian forms (thus his admiration for Vladimir Putin and for the Chinese Communists who assaulted the protesters at Tiananmen Square); the reduction of all relations to dominance contests; the contempt for rational argument; the perpetual unashamed storm of lies; the appeal to hysterically exaggerated fears of outsiders; and, above all, the relentless sense of ethnic grievance that can be remedied only by acts of annihilating revenge. His is the ideology not of democratic patriotism but of a narrow nationalism alone—the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history. He will “level the playing field” with the terrorist spectre of isis by forcing soldiers to commit war crimes; he will not merely kill our enemies but annihilate their families. His platform is resentment and his program is revenge, and that is an ideology with many faces and one name. This is fascism with an American face.”
Conclusion
The protocol should not have been violated. Sowing the seeds of doubt about a nominee as a campaign is drawing to a close is paramount to endorsing the nominee’s opponent. Mr Comey’s last-minute revelation is an assault on democracy, words I have already used. In this election one should vote for the nominee whose devotion and dedication to the United States is an established fact. That privilege is being trampled on.
Retired General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell is not an admirer of Hillary Clinton and he has called Donald Trump a “national disgrace” and “international pariah.”
Yet, he has stated that he would vote for Mrs Clinton because she is an experienced politician. She is, by leaps and bounds, the better and safer choice. In such a case, a rational individual has to take Blaise Pascal‘s wager.
“In Pensées, Pascal surveys several philosophical paradoxes: infinity and nothing, faith and reason, soul and matter, death and life, meaning and vanity – seemingly arriving at no definitive conclusions besides humility, ignorance, and grace. Rolling these into one he develops Pascal’s Wager.” (See Pascal, Wikipedia.)
According to Pascal’s Wager, if one elects Mr Trump one has every thing to lose and nothing to gain.
I tried to finish this article earlier, but a migraine stood in my way and the pain will not abate.
Portrait of Blaise Pascal made by François II Quesnel for Gérard Edelinck in 1691 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Blaise Pascal and Gottfried Leibniz
Voltaire‘s Candidewas a satire ofLeibniz‘ metaphysics, but not a criticism of Leibnizhimself or all of his theories (1 July 1646 – 14 November 1716). Gottfried Leibniz, who lived in Leipzig, was a great mathematician, inventor, logician and diplomat. He believed in God and assumed that God was good, hence his “best of all possible worlds.” It was a noble thought, but nearly three centuries later, we remain very short of good.
Sufficient reason[1]
The word “sufficient” reminded me ofPascal(19 June 1623 – 19 August 1662: aged 39) who, despite illness, chronic pain, and his rather short life, contributed so much to the world of ideas and to science. While I was writing my posts on Candide, a monument to humankind, I was puzzled by Leibniz’s use of the word “sufficient.”
I remembered telling my students that after Étienne Pascal, Blaise Pascal’s father, losthis wife, he leftClermont-Ferrand, where Blaise was born and settled in Paris, where he often had guests who were prominent scientists.
Given that his son Blaise could not travel, due to ill health, whenever a scientist was in Paris, Étienne tried to introduce him to his son who was a child prodigy. In fact, the work done by Pierre de Fermat (17 August 1601 or 1607 – 12 January 1665) and Pascal into the calculus of probabilities laid “important groundwork” for Leibniz‘ formulation of thecalculus.(SeeLeibniz, Wikipedia.)
At this point, allow me a slight digression.
The Calculator
As scientists, both Pascal and Leibniz invented calculators.
Blaise Pascal’s father was atax farmer, the name given tax collectors during the ancien régime. This was a position one could purchase as was the case with many positions in 17th– and-18th-century France. Louis XIV was forever in need of money to pay for Versailles and finance his wars. Selling positions was yet another avenue allowing Louis to replenish France’s empty vaults.
As tax collector, Pascal’s father needed a calculator, so his son Blaise invented the Pascaline, an ancestor to our calculators and to computer science. It was a helpful machine and there are a few Pascalines left for everyone to see.
But Leibniz also invented a calculator, hisLeibniz’s Wheel. Under Wikipedia’s entry on calculators, the reader is told that Leibniz’s calculator was never “fully operational.”
“Schickard[mostly] and Pascal were followed byGottfried Leibnizwho spent forty years designing a four-operation mechanical calculator, inventing in the process hisLeibniz wheel, but who couldn’t design a fully operational machine.”
However, the Leibniz’ wheel entry tells a different story.
“Invented byLeibnizin 1673,it was used for three centuries until the advent of the electronic calculator in the mid-1970s.”
I wouldn’t dare refute that statement as we may be looking at two slightly different machines (“inventing in the process”). But I will point out that the “abacus,” was “acalculating tool that was in use centuries before the adoption of the written modern numeral system and is still widely used by merchants, traders and clerks inAsia, Africa, and elsewhere.”(SeeAbacus, Wikipedia.) It “was known to have been used by Sumerians and Egyptians before 2000 BCE.” I should think that humans have always had some sort of calculator. (SeeCalculator, Wikipedia.)
Let us return to the word ‘Sufficient’
Pascal may have provided an element to Leibniz’s vocabulary: the word “sufficient,” as in “sufficient reason.” This no one can prove, but it is either ‘probable’ or quite a coincidence.I should note that Pascal did not support fully the use of reason to arrive at scientific truths, in which he differed from Leibniz, at least initially. For Pascal reason, or “l’esprit de géométrie,” was the other half of “l’esprit de finesse,” a form of instinct or intuition (le cœur),[2]from which emanates the seminal idea that leads to an important discovery or further knowledge. Beautiful melodies are mostly inspired.
Pascal was aJansenist. Jansenism is neither a religion nor a sect; it is a concept within Catholicism that would later be condemned as heretical.[3]Jansenists believed in predestination, which meant that although one lived a virtuous life, virtue could not lead to salvation. Those who believed in God and lived a virtuous manner had been granted sufficient (suffisante) grace, but only efficacious (efficace) grace ensured one’s salvation. Therefore, however good a person could be, salvation was an arbitrary gift. It could not be attained, except by the chosen ones.
Port-Royal-des-Champs Abbey (destroyed by fire) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Sufficient and Efficacious Grace
In other words, according to the Jansenists, who lived atPort-Royal-des-Champsand Port-Royal Abbey, in Paris, were friends of Pascal, there were two forms of grace:la grâce suffisante(sufficient grace)andlagrâce efficace FR (efficacious grace), only one of which, lagrâce efficace could ensure salvation and God, if He existed, which Pascal set out to prove in his unfinishedPensées (Thoughts), selected those who would be saved.
To complicate matters, Jesuits, also attacked by Voltaire, had devised a system that allowed people to sin without sinning. (See RELATED ARTICLES.) Nothing could excuse casuistry and it was injurious to all who lived a good life. In 1646, Pascal became a Jansenist and, a few years later, in 1656-67, when Jansenism was first condemned, he wrote hisProvincial letters, 18 letters and a possible 19th, the masterpiece that inspired Voltaire’sCandide.
Cornelius Jansen‘s (28 October 1585 – 6 May 1638) is the founder of Jansenism, as hisname suggests. HisAugustinus (1640) was published posthumously in Louvain/ Leuven, Belgium and sparked a controversy.
I will not enter into details. Suffice it to repeat that one could not be saved even if one had led a virtuous life. Such thinking is extremely pessimistic, but given JesuitCasuistry (la casuistique),the faithful defended the monks of the Port-Royal-des-Champs abbey, one of whom was Pascal. The issues raised by Jansenism were:
the Original Sin (we are born guilty and are therefore in need of salvation);
the Divine Grace.
Divine Grace
The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following description of grace: “Grace in Christianity is the free and unmerited favour ofGodas manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowing of blessings.”
The Following are quotations from Wikipedia
In Islam, according to “Dr. Umar Al-Ashqar, dean of the Faculty of Islamic Law atZarqa Private University inZarqa, Jordan: ‘Paradise is something of immense value; a person cannot earn it by virtue of his deeds alone, but by the Grace and Mercy of Allah.’
This stance is supported byhadith: according to Abu Huraira, prophet Muhammad once said that ‘None amongst you can get into Paradise by virtue of his deeds alone … not even I, but that Allah should wrap me in his grace and mercy.’”
In Hinduism, “oneHindu philosopher, Madhvacharya, held that grace was not a gift from God, but rather must be earned.”
Pascal’s Wager: Le Pari fatal
Neither Jansenists nor Muslims can earn salvation.They cannot erase the original sin. Consequently, they may despair.Existentialismclaims the opposite. Humankind makes itself, which cannot be entirely the case. Yet, quite astonishingly, Voltaire was an early existentialist. He stated that “[m]an [was] free at the moment he wishe[d] to be.”
As for Pascal, he lived virtuously wagering that he was among the chosen ones. The text of the Wager is inSourcesand Resources, below.
However, the wager can be summarized. According to Pascal, we cannot know whether or not God exists. For him, God existed. He was a man of faith. But had he not been a man of faith, he would nevertheless have wagered that God existed. By doing so, one has everything to gain and nothing to lose.
The Theory of Probability and the Pari fatal
Here we sense that Pascal and his friends, theduc de RoannezFR but mainlyPierre de Fermatcontributed in the development the theory of probability. It is possible to calculate the odds. The following quotation is in French, but the wager can be summarized. One has nothing to lose by wagering that God exists and everything to lose by not waging He exists.(SeeThe Wager.)
« Vous avez deux choses à perdre : le vrai et le bien, et deux choses à engager : votre raison et votre volonté, votre connaissance et votre béatitude ; et votre nature a deux choses à fuir : l’erreur et la misère. Votre raison n’est pas plus blessée, en choisissant l’un que l’autre, puisqu’il faut nécessairement choisir. Voilà un point vidé. Mais votre béatitude ? Pesons le gain et la perte, en prenant croix que Dieu est. Estimons ces deux cas : si vous gagnez, vous gagnez tout ; si vous perdez, vous ne perdez rien. Gagez donc qu’il est, sans hésiter. »
“if you win, you win everything; if you lose, you do not lose anything. So bet that God is, without hesitating.”
Conclusion
In a world where Jesuits could take sin away from sinners, it is understandable that Christians in France should have chosen to defend Jansenism. Casuistry allowed kings and aristocrats to have a mistress without remorse. If one’s intentions were good, one could kill, rape and pillage. Pascal therefore took the defense of Jansenism and the priests of Notre-Dame-des-Champs, Cistercian nuns and monks. They avoided sins, were truly devout, and lived according to their vows.
Voltaire was not a Jansenist, but he believed in God. Many humans believe in God because they see orchids, the amaryllis, dawn, and glorious sunsets. The birth of a child seems a miracle. However, Jansenism did not give anyone the chance to go to heaven and imperiled happiness. Humans must atone. Therefore, happiness during this brief lifetime could point to eternal damnation.
Antoine Arnauld
Jean du Vergier
Leibniz visited with Antoine Arnauld, who succeeded Jean Duvergier de Hauranne as abbot of the Port-Royal-des-Champs abbey. As a diplomat, Leibniz was invited to Paris in 1672. (See Leibniz 1666-1674.) Leibniz had visited France earlier but, in 1672, he met with Antoine Arnauld, the superior at Port-Royal des Champs.
The “sufficient” of “sufficient reason” may well be related to the “sufficient” of “sufficient grace.” But more importantly, neither concept support the likelihood of a “best of all possible worlds.”
(My computer was hacked and has not been fully repaired. So this post is not altogether complete. I must discuss free will, Les Provinciales [the syle], original sin, etc. Les Provinciales were published under a pseudonym: Louis de Montalte.)