Where is My Political Party?

I can’t believe I’m the only American....citizen or not...whose beliefs don’t exactly “match up” with one of the two major [or any of the minor] political parties. BTW, these so called “parties” aren’t much fun to attend. They’re what James Madison called “factions” in the Federalist Papers, and his firm belief was that they would never become “permanent.” So much for his predictions.

Here are my “Ten Commandments” [in no particular order...and who knows…I probably left some off] So...where do I fit?

1. Every American should have complete health care provided from birth to grave – as matter of positive right. [That means “society” is obliged to assist.] So, am I a Democrat?

2. All “parties of god” that believe they have a mission to compel others to believe as they do should be eradicated from the earth, forever. So, am I a “Christopher Hitchens-ite”?

3. The United States was right to eliminate Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath Party. [Of course it should have been done as a police action, like Manuel Noriega, and not done by idiots. And it certainly shouldn’t have entailed a “war”!] So, am I some kind of a Republican?

4. The “War” on Terror should not be treated as a “war” – which it is not – but as a major “police action. [BTW, The Korean “War” was a genuine “war” and not a “police action” as it was termed back in the day]. So, am I a John Kerry Democrat?

5. All drugs should be fully legalized and regulated. [BTW, this is kind of a redundancy – “legalization” logically entails “regulation.’] So, am I a Libertarian?

6. Prostitution should be fully legalized and regulated. [See the above.]

7. Education through college should be mandatory – but [and this is a big “butt” – sic] many different forms and structures and methods should be supported and encouraged, such as Montessori, home-schooling, charter schooling, vouchers, incarceration [yes, I mean it!], free schooling, and so on. So, hell, I don’t know who thinks this!!

8. Super billionaires and the like should be taxed extremely heavily, and the wealth re-distributed. So, am I a Socialist?

9. Public ownership of necessary services and private ownership of the rest. So, am I a Socialistic Capitalist?

10. Food, clothing and shelter should be a positive right. [See number 1 above.] So, am I a pure Socialist?

[Ok, I lied....here's a few more "commandments."]

11. The right for a women to choose an abortion should be a positive right. [See number 1 above.] So, am I a pure Democrat?

12. Capital punishment is a just form of punishment...and should be used very very sparingly and very very carefully…but used! Some people are literally a "waste of oxygen." So, am I a pure Republican?

13. Stem cell research should be generously funded. So...well, hell....everyone but stupid people are for this, right???

14. "Gay" marriage is a pseudo issue -- it would have absolutely no bearing on anyone else's marriage or life whatsoever. Why isn't it legal?? Stupid people, that's why! So, am I, again, a libertarian?

Oh, and among the various candidates for the presidency in the news...I like sort of like Richardson. We need a “non-Caucasoid” president for a change. I only wish he was a tad better at public presentations! The other “non-Caucasoid” is a bit fresh for my taste. I’d like to see a female president too....maybe a “real one” will run next time. [See my "Hillbilly" blog.] Most of the republicans, except Rudy and McCain, say that they are “creationists”?? Huh?? Either they are liars [most likely] or just plain stupid [can’t be ruled out] like our current “head of state.”

So, again I ask....where is my political party??

Princess Di: A Festering Pustule

Why is it that only Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens seem to be aware of the horror that is the “Princess Di” and its truly tragic death? And I fully mean to refer to PD as an “it,” because it was more than a person – it was, and is, a phenomenon – larger than its life. And I also fully mean that its death was “tragic” – not because of any sadness I might have for its passing [and I imagine you can discern that I have no such feelings] but for the fact that its death had the wholly regrettable consequence of reinvigorating that antiquated abomination, the British monarchy.

There was a good reason why we fought the Revolutionary War – to get rid of the British Monarchy’s rule over the Colonies. It worked! We were rid of them. This is not to say that we immediately set about doing things a lot better. There was, after all, that little, nagging problem of slavery that we kept in place in 1789, when we created that otherwise magnificent document, The Constitution. We had to wait until 1865 finally to come to our senses and outlaw it. The Brits were ahead of us on this. They outlawed it in 1833. But – a little know fact – both the Brits and the Americans outlawed the international slave trade in 1807! Not the practice of slavery itself, mind you, but the importation of slaves was outlawed. This is kind of like decriminalizing the use of marijuana, but keeping its sale illegal! Can you spell “hypocrisy”?!!

So while we got it right in some ways...we bombed in others. The same for the Brits – they got it right sooner than we did about slavery...but not with their caste system.

Moving up to the 20th and 21st centuries, it seemed like, finally, the Brits were tiring of the House of Windsor – the latest incarnation of inbred Euro-trash. Before the phenomenon of PD, only about 14% of Brits supported the continuation of their “peculiar institution.” Yes, I use this term, fully conscious of its American roots. [Ok, ok, ok....I made up this figure....but I bet it’s not that far off!!] After PD, and its death, the percentage of support rose dramatically!! Hence, its death truly was tragic. Were it still alive and “Euro-trashing” about, maybe people would have seen it for what it was: just another rich bitch like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. [Egad....does that “brit” in the latter name mean anything??]

Oh sure, it was opposed to land mines still killing people all over the world, and it supported various organizations dedicated to removing them. But, I’d like to see a show of hands of all those in favor of keeping the land mines where they are, still killing and maiming innocent people. What? No one? No one at all???! What a surprise! Maybe it was opposed to child abuse too??

But it was pretty, right? That’s reason enough to mourn its loss! Damn...you know, I think there may be something to this!! What if PD just happened to have looked more like Camilla Parker-Bowles, Madeleine Albright or even more like Prince Charles himself!? My guess – no PD phenomenon! And the percentage of “royalists” would have continued to drop. This alleged “prettiness” it seems, ironically enough, is actually closer to a festering pustule on the ass of civilization and humanity.

It’s time to lance it – forever!

Sex and That Nasty Little Preposition

No, I’m not writing metaphorically....I mean it quite literally: a preposition!
Actually, it’s part of a much larger issue about the relationship between language and reality. So nouns and verbs and so on come into play along with prepositions. Simply put, the – dare I say – philosophical issue is this: Does language merely reflect and describe reality? Or, does it in some way create the reality in which we live? It does a little of both, you’re likely to say – and, and of course, you’d be right. But how, specifically, does this reflection and creation take place?

Good question....glad you asked!

Let’s take sex, for example.

What’s going on when people “have sex”? Well, first of all, they don’t “have” it like people “have a cold or the flu” or “have 50 cents.” So this phrase needs to be “unpacked” – as some linguists like to say. As it is, it’s just plain nonsense.

“Having sex”: even if it’s not literally describing something, isn’t it really pretty clear what kind of action is taking place? Isn’t someone just “making love to” someone else?

Maybe....but “making love”??? Is that like “making a basket” or “making a living” or “making ends meet”?? How do you “make” love, anyway? I know, I know...it’s a euphemism. But a euphemism for what? Intercourse?? Hmmm....come to think of it, this is a kind of euphemism itself? It refers to communication. How about just this simple Anglo-Saxonism: “fucking”! Surely, that’s what’s going on when people “make love”! When you’re “making love” you’re just “fucking”!

But, as we all know, “to fuck” is notoriously ambiguous...and the relationship among and between its various meanings is widely and heatedly debated. “to fuck” someone” is not the same as “to fuck with” someone or “to fuck someone over” to say nothing of urging someone “to fuck off” or even “to fuck up”! And ever if we restrict its meaning to sexual “congress” [another euphemism!], there’s still a key ambiguity: What exactly is happening when someone “fucks another person”?

Do the prepositions help at all?

· Fuck up
· Fuck off
· Fuck with
· Fuck over
· Fuck around

Should we add a direct object?

· Fuck you!

Or, should we put it in the passive voice?

· I was fucked!

Notice that none of these alternatives captures the typical meaning of sexual intercourse:

The insertion of the engorged penis into the vagina or an anus or perhaps the mouth [Bill Clinton’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding] and excited by rhythmic movement until ejaculation takes place.

But, we know this: the introduction of a preposition renders a reference to sexuality either impossible or tortured, at best. “Fucking” is not getting us any closer to what goes on when someone “has sex with” someone else.

Back to square one?

I think not: “having sex with someone” may not be made clearer by focusing on the verbal phrase...but how about the preposition: “with”?!

Can you “have sex” and not do so “with” someone? Ok ok ok ok ok – sure you can. But masturbation is always “with” a fantasized person, right?? Nor do you do “do sex” other than “with” someone. “With” seems to be something special!

How about “making love with” someone and “making love to” someone?? Doesn’t this kind of describe pretty accurately what’s going on?

I think so....BUT.... these two prepositions do not describe the same reality! “With” suggests the participation of the two [or more] participants; whereas, “to” suggests passivity or being acted upon! Now, what’s involved with “with” [Egad....a Clintonianism!!] as opposed to “to” is the subject of another blog.

For now, I want to suggest that when someone approaches you with an offer “to make love,” you be very careful to notice what preposition is being used. You just might be able to assess whether it’s worth your while. A person’s intentions are more often than not revealed in the language they use.

I don’t know about you, but I’m a “with-it” kinda guy....

Evolution vs Stupidism

We seem now to be engaged in a great civil struggle, testing whether this movement or that movement – so conceived – can long endure.

Just as the above referenced contest of the mid nineteenth century pitted one just cause against a patently unjust cause, so also are we now in the midst of a struggle between science and stupidism. Lest ye think that I used this latter term lightly, let me reassure you: I intend it quite laterally. So I suppose I should begin with a few definitions.

First, let’s be clear about “science.” It’s not a set of beliefs or theories; it’s a procedure, a way of acquiring information about our universe. It’s an empirical procedure dedicated to developing hypotheses about reality and testing them – allowing the evidence to “speak for itself,” so to speak. No current empirical description is sacrosanct. Everything is subject to a constant critical engagement, and thus subject to revision or abandonment.

Now, let’s talk about “evolution.” Here is where a careful distinction has to be made between the general, abstract theory of evolution proper and various, specific hypotheses about how evolution actually works. One such, historically significant “theory” is “Darwin’s.” Another one was developed by a guy named Alfred Wallace [a theist, by the way]. Both theories have been fundamentally critiqued and either thoroughly revised [Darwin – especially after Gregor Mendel’s genetic theory helped explain the process more fully] or abandoned [Wallace]. No one – let me emphasize that – no one any longer questions the general theory of evolution. Yes, I mean no one!! The specific hypothetical theories, of course, are always being questioned, by science, and always will be.

What about “stupidity?” Good question....glad you asked. I’ll propose the following as a working definition, but I think it’s a pretty good one. “Stupidity” is simply the refusal to accept one’s ignorance when it is perfectly easy and rational to do so. Keep in mind that “being ignorant” is not a bad think. In fact we are all “ignorant” – about virtually everything. There are many things we don’t know – and know we don’t know! We are, in other words, aware of our ignorance. Before Copernicus, most people were genuinely unaware of the fact that the sun was the center of the solar system, and most of them had no way of knowing...that they didn’t know. They were ignorant...with no way to know that they were ignorant. When Galileo Galilei [yes, that’s his full name, in case you were ignorant of this!] made the world aware of the fact that Copernicus was right, they then became aware of their ignorance – gradually, of course, since the Roman Catholic Church had his books burned and had him imprisoned]. But, and here’s the telling point: the Papacy knew Galileo was right! Yet they persisted in “believing” that the earth was at the center of the universe. This persistence...the refusal to accept their ignorance...is a paradigm of “stupidity.” Further.....to “teach” others to believe something to be true, when you know it to be untrue…is to practice “stupidism.”

So, are there people who “believe” in the “Creationist” account of human origins, when they fully well know it not to be true? Of course there are!! A prime example of this is the people who invented the Creationist-inspired “Dinosaur Adventure Land” in Pensacola, Florida, where dinosaurs supposedly frolicked with humans. [Remember, according to creationism, the world is only about 6000 years old [a la Bishop Ussher]. Naturally [dare I use this word!?] they would protest the authenticity of their beliefs, but all this means is that they may have talked themselves into believing it. Blaise Pascal advised Christians in the 17th century to undertake this very kind of self-deception....just in case! Can they know the truth? Of course! Do they choose to ignore their ignorance? Obviously!

Hence, we have a struggle in our time between the general notion of evolution and stupidism! What can be done about this, you ask. Another good question. Most important, it is for us, the “ignorant,” to be dedicated to the unfinished work which Darin and Mendel have so nobly advanced, the cause of science, and to the great task remaining before us – to rid humanity of stupidism.

The First Offendment

Ok, everybody, it's time to get a little less stupid.

When Don Imus was recently fired for his offensive remarks about the women's basketball team from Rutgers, it struck me as odd. Odd, because while they were certainly offensive, they certainly caused no one on that team any harm. And if there's no harm...there's no foul -- in sports and in the law, and in morality too. If anything, it may have been a violation of good taste.

No harm, you ask? Sure...no harm! Were there physical injuries? Loss of money? Stifling of opportunities? Emotional duress? No...none of these things happened. What about "emotional harm"? Ok...what was it? Can anyone explain to me what this means?

What happened was they got mad -- and rightly so. But is making someone mad equivalent to harming them? I think not.

Now, something even more absurd is in the news: Ann Coulter, right-wing "fire-brand," has apparently offended Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of one of multitudes running for president. Isn't this another similar oddity? After all, and it seems really pretty obvious in this case, Ms. Edwards was in no way harmed...nor was her husband put into any danger. Again: "no harm, no foul." This also was a mere violation of taste, perhaps.

To put it as clearly as possible, the First Amendment not only gives us the right to offend people, it is probably the very essence of the amendment. As noted by virtually anyone and everyone, popular, tasteful and non-controversial speech doesn't need any protection. It's offensive speech that's always in danger. In fact, the amendment just as well might have been written as such:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of TO OFFEND"

Obviously, religious zealots of any and all stripes and hues are offended by nasty and tasteless portrayals of their various deities, but, frankly, so what! Our Constitution, not only allows this, it "says" -- "go on, give them your best shot!"

Offenses are attacks on ideas, beliefs, assumptions and so on...they are not attacks against the body or mind. They are certainly intended to affect the emotions -- producing anger and outrage. But....this is not harm! In fact, it's a good thing! If ideas and beliefs are so fragile as to fall to pieces when attacked, then so be it.

Harm and the threat of harm is a danger to any free society, but offense is not. Rather, it's what a free society is all about...and if you can't see that...you're stupid!

Logic: Between Iraq and a Hard Place [so sorry]

A Little Logic Please!?

Maybe I’m missing something, but isn’t there a logical resolution to the current impasse between those wanting to continue the war in Iraq in some way and those who want to end it…again, in some way? I’ve been teaching logic for over a quarter of a century, and perhaps being cooped up in the academic milieu has blinded me to the “realities of life.” But just maybe, the “realities of life” have blinded our political leaders and “deciders” (and want-to-be leaders and “deciders”) to the simple logic of the situation. And I truly believe it really is – literally – simple.

Consider the following four arguments.

Argument 1:

• Premise: Anyone’s version of “victory” involves stopping the violence between the Sunnis and the Shiites as a necessary condition. (No one disputes this.)
• Premise: Stopping the violence between them is at least as intractable as resolving the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants. (Sunnis and Shiites have been at each other’s throats ever since the death of Mohammed. It is sheer and incalculable hubris to think that any outsider can resolve this antagonism in the space of decades, much less months.)
• Premise: The “surge” is at best a temporary expedient, with no hope for any lasting benefit. (Anyone expressing such a “hope” is basing it on a resolution of the division mentioned in the first premise.)
• Conclusion: “Victory” in Iraq is not achievable….period! (Sorry Republicans!)

Ok….so much for the easy argument. But the next one’s actually pretty easy too!

Argument 2:

• Premise: Ending all funding for the war would necessitate bringing all of our military forces home forthwith. Yes, our non-military participants would leave too. It would be insane to leave them there without protection!)
• Premise: A precipitous withdrawal would almost certainly lead to a massive humanitarian disaster. (Keep in mind, no “resolution” of the basic conflicts is going to happen!)
• Premise: There are only two alternatives – stay (I refuse to add that insipid phrase “the course”) OR leave. (You doubt this, that these are the only options?? Ok, just name one!!)
• Premise: A humanitarian disaster is something no one wants (or wants to admit wanting) – for all sorts of reasons.
• Conclusion: We just have to stay! (Sorry Democrats!!)

So what do we do, You ask?? Good question…but, you know, this is the easiest argument of them all – believe it or not!

Argument 3:

• Premise: All Iraq is divided into three parts. (Ok…I stole that from Julius Caesar: Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres.” In this case: the three regions controlled by Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds – “oh my!”)
• Premise: None of the three wants to have anything to do with the others.
• Premise: Trying to unite these three parts is a “fools errand.” (No one suggested trying to unite the divisionsof the former Yugoslavia, did they? That’s a rhetorical question, of course.)
• Conclusion: Change the meaning of “victory” in Iraq to mean the creation of a “tri-partite” federation. (Sorry Iraq!)

And the final argument flows quite nicely from the preceding ones:

Argument 4:

• Premise (from Argument 1): We can’t win with our current notion of what it means to “win.”
• Premise (from Argument 2): We can’t leave Iraq in its current condition. (Let’s forget for a moment how it came to be in this condition.)
• Premise (from Argument 3): The only possible – realizable – goal is to use our presence -- and the surge -- to oversee the creation of a federation.
• Premise (from Caesar again): Discretion is the better part of valor. (That means have the guts and the intelligence to know the difference between reality and illusion.)
• Conclusion: There really is a “light at the end of the tunnel”! (Egad! Did I just quote Lyndon Johnson?? Forgive me, Lordy!!)

Now, isn’t there some leader or “decider”-to-be out there that thinks logically??

Hello…..

Hello?!!?

War Without End: The Misuse of Metaphor

Once upon a time the United States of America used to go to war. We did this several times. They were wars, like all wars, that pitted our nation against other nations. It was always all of “us” against all of “them.” These “Thems” have included England (two tmees0, Mexico, the Confederacy (a nation-wanna-be), Indian nations (actually more of a genocide than a war), Spain, Germany (two times), Japan, North Korea and North Viet Nam. And once upon a time we won most of these wars. (There’s one war in the list we didn’t quite win and another we sort of lost….but who’s counting?) Nevertheless, we usually won. How did we know this? Well, those other nations gave up or surrendered…simple! To be honest, not all of these wars were popular wars or good wars or even nice wars, but they all had the virtue of eventually coming to an end.

Since the Sixties (the nineteen sixties), however, our United States of America has often decided to go to war against some enemies that weren’t nations at all, like “poverty” and “crime” and “drugs.” No question about it: these were, and are, nasty enemies, and they all deserve to be destroyed. These wars were good wars, no question. But no one was deceived. These weren’t “real” enemies…not flesh and blood villains coming at us with fixed bayonets. They were metaphorical enemies! And neither were we fooled by calling them “wars.” Congress wasn’t called into special session, troops weren’t mobilized, and diplomats weren’t recalled from a foreign land. They were metaphorical wars! They were like real wars but not real wars. We knew this, and we weren’t being told otherwise. Most of all, we knew that, unlike a real war, these metaphorical wars would never come to an end. They weren’t supposed to. These enemies are “things” endemic to modern society and have to be dealt in one way or another…forever!

Just think what would happen, however, if someone were to confuse using “war” as a metaphor with the reality of war!? And suppose for a moment that this “someone” were in a position to act on this confusion! What would be “up with that”?

Wait a minute! Aren’t we “now engaged in a great…war…testing whether this nation…can long endure.”? And our new enemy is “terrorism,” right? But we’re not fooled, “Terrorism” isn’t a literal enemy, and there’s no literal nation to sally forth against, our “terrible swift swords” at the ready. It’s like all those other “wars” that continuously engage our attention and recourses – metaphorical wars that never end.

So if this “great war” is a metaphorical war, why are we literally contending against another actual nation? What happened to the metaphor? Did someone misunderstand what we’re supposed to be doing? After all, we never actually declared war on Iraq. In fact, we invaded Iraq to save Iraq! So clearly there was no nation that we are literally at war with. But if this is so, how can we tell when we win? Who’s going to surrender to us? Someone “in charge” is always telling us that “it will end…but after a long struggle.” But only real wars “end”; metaphorical wars don’t! They’re not supposed to end because the “enemy” is always with us.

In those “once upon a time” wars, we could always look forward to “living happily ever after” when the enemy surrendered and peace [a state of “non war”?] would be restored. And that’s pretty much what we’re being promised now. But Iraq isn’t going to surrender? Iraq is our friend! We’re not at war with Iraq – we’re at war with “terrorism”! Is “terrorism” going to surrender? I don’t think so…I don’t even know what that means.

So why do these people ‘in charge” keep taking about “Iraq” and “terrorism” and “winning” and “losing”? Are they talking about a real war or a metaphorical war? Somebody is confused. I know I am!