It Goes Without Saying

 

I don't like homosexuals.

Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike them either. The whole thing is none of my business and frankly, I'm not especially interested. And all of my views of homosexuality are irrelevant – whatever they are. I'm free to express them. The Constitution says so. However no one cares, so why bother.

But there's one thing I have to say, and I don't care if no one is interested. It has to do with members of that cause. I'm against their perversion. No. Once again it's not what you think. It has nothing to do with their choices for companionship. Rather it's their ongoing attack on the English language and on our culture. I have no problem with homosexual unions nor with their being accorded the same economic and insurance benefits as marriage. In fact I support such policies. But I take issue with the hijacking of the word “marriage.” The insistence that homosexual unions be called marriages will, in effect, take away a perfectly good word from our language – one that indicates a particular relationship of a man and a woman. (Over time we have lost the idea of “common-law marriage,” and “partner” now has a totally different meaning from what it used to have.) Nothing but political points is gained by blurring the meaning of the word, and the insistence that this word be used seems to me to be contrary to what was originally demanded.

Following the Stonewall Riot of 1969, homosexuals were encouraged to “come out of the closet.” And they did so. More power to them. They demanded that they be permitted to be who they were, and to be accepted as such; that their sexual orientation was no one's business but their own.ⁱ Differences between people were irrelevant. In fact, differences should be encouraged. So far, so good. That was fine for their community and it certainly did not represent a threat to anyone else.

But soon there were demands on others. They forced much of the rest of society into the closet. One of their demands related to languageⁱⁱ Although there was a long history of “gay” having sexual connotations (though this was a secondary understanding of the word), these connotations were usually heterosexual. In the mid and late twentieth century, however, the term, which was generally understood as “happy” and “carefree,” came to be related, through their efforts, to homosexuals, because “homosexual” was considered too clinical and pejorative, and because, up until 1969, homosexuality itself was a crime in England. Homosexual men, considering themselves happy and carefree, preferred the term “gay,” though women continued to label themselves, and be labeled by others, as Lesbians.ⁱⁱⁱ In any event, the term “gay” was lost in its previous sense, and there is no good substitute.

Perhaps this is all “a phase we're going through.” I hope so. I hope that in time labeling will disappear. In the meantime, however, our language^iv will be impoverished as it has been by other groups. Notwithstanding my views of equality, I regret the changes in our language that have come about with Black Power and the feminist movement. “Holocaust” and “ghetto” used to have specific meanings and connotations which are now buried in history. And the reinvention and removal of gender^v from much of our language – like the substitution of “their” for “his” or “her” and the neutering of other terms – leaves us with such monstrosities as “To each their own” and “chairperson.”

I know that language changes over time, but I'd be happier if it were enlarged, not diminished by change. And it is being diminished in terms of descriptive words as time goes by.

I agree with the view that we should enlarge our view of others as our brothers and sisters. We should welcome everyone irrespective of his or her practice, as long as others aren't detrimental to us. But by welcoming them, by widening our community, we should not be diminishing our language. We should be enlarging it as well. Our union should be one that allows our language to flower along with our population.

Next episode: “Out At Home” – Baseball and the world in which we live.

i    They demanded that there be no discrimination against them.  Fair enough, but, of course, discrimination should not be permitted against any citizen or, for that matter, against anyone anywhere.  Statutes outlawing such biases were passed even though they, and similar laws, should not be necessary.  (When you pass a law forbidding discrimination against some groups it is logical to assume that intolerance displayed against groups not specifically named is perfectly legitimate.  But that idea deserves its own essay, so I'll have no more to say about it here.) Indeed, “hate laws,” – or, more accurately, anti-hate laws – seem to me to be silly and “un-American.”  I suspect I wouldn't care, if someone killed me, that he uttered a slur before doing so.  I'd still be dead.  And the same is true for theft, assault, or whatever.  What we need more than additional laws is the enforcement of the ones already on the books.

     Not only that, I'm offended by the stricture on name-calling. I oppose such insults of course, but I don't think there should be laws against them. It seems to me that the First Amendment makes such behavior legal, however reprehensible it may be.  When I was growing up we were taught that “ … words will never hurt you.”  They do, but it was accepted that name-calling was usual, and part of life.  If any action is to be taken against it, that should be educational.

ii  Another was the interpolation and explosion of homosexuality in popular culture.  Nowadays there is a homosexual or a reference to homosexuality in many, if not most, plays and television programs.

iii  Presumably they had a different self-image.  (By the way, some other terms are used as well.)

iv  American English.  But it's probably like that in other languages as well. I can't imagine that Americans are the only ones foolish enough to place political before correctness and to value sensitivity over sense and fads over facts. But I could be wrong.  Perhaps we are the only ones dumb enough to hoodwink ourselves.

v “Gender” – from genus, meaning “kind” or “type” – properly refers to differences of characteristics and was largely related to language and, in some tongues, the assignment of “male” or “female” characteristics to certain nouns.  Only more recently has it come to mean “sex” or, often, a self-assigned “nature” – how we feel about ourselves, and what should have been. We treat ourselves like words, but treat words, themselves, badly.

Invitation To The Dance

 

I was looking forward to the evening. There was a great football game on TV that I could watch in my pajamas. There's nothing like high definition and a fifty-two inch screen. And a nice soft couch. And beer and snacks. And a game that starts at six thirty so I'd be able to get a good night's sleep even though it's likely to take three or four hours. I don't know why they have so many ads and so long a half-time show. But that's the breaks of the game.

“What's for dinner?”

“What would you like? I'll make you whatever you choose.”

“How about a steak. And maybe some French Fries.”

It was getting better and better.

My wife opened the refrigerator^.

“We have some left over spaghetti and meatballs in the fridge. It's been in the back for a couple of weeks and I'd like to use it before it spoils.”

“It's not what I had in mind but if that's easier for you, okay.”

“Or maybe you'd like some lasagna or tuna salad. They're here too. I'm not sure how old they are but we've got to get rid of them.”

“Whatever's easiest for you. I just want to finish eating before the game begins.”

There was a pause, and then:

“I have a great idea. A new Chinese restaurant opened a couple of weeks ago and all my friends say that it's wonderful. Perhaps we can go there. If we leave in the next few minutes we'll be back in time.”

“You know I don't like Chinese food. I'd rather go to a delicatessen and get some real food. But we'd better leave soon.”

“There's a wonderful fish house not far from here. Gourmet Fillet. It's supposed to be very good. I think you'll be more comfortable, though, if you put on a sport jacket or suit.”

“Fine. But let's go. It's getting late.”

“Just give me a minute to change.”

So I did, and we went. And the food was terrible and, I think, spoiled. But the service was worse. No matter how often I pleaded with the waiter to speed things up, we finished after the game began. My wife was very sympathetic.

“I know that took longer than you anticipated, but now that the game has already started and you can only see part of it, why don't we do something else?”

I wasn't ready to give up.

“There's still the second half. Let's go home.”

“You can find out the score from the TV or the newspaper later. Now that we're out and you're dressed, we really shouldn't waste the evening.”

It was after seven o'clock already and I was beginning to get tired. I was certainly tired of the debate. But my lovely wife filled in the gaps.

“Which would you prefer? The ballet or the opera? Both start at 8 o'clock and we can get there in time.”

“I hate both of them. Anything but ballet. And opera's not much better”

“Whatever you say. If you prefer, The Story Of Our Love is playing at the multiplex a few blocks away. I checked this afternoon and it begins in about twenty minutes.”

“As long as it's not ballet or the opera.”

Like all “chick flicks” the movie was terrible. And it seemed to go on forever. And apart from the movie itself, the advertisements were interminable. The time that my wife claimed to be the start of the movie was actually the start of those ads. My stomach was already beginning to bother me. That never happened with beer and munchies. But eventually we went home. It was long after I had planned on being asleep but we finally made it. I tossed and turned all night – at least when I wasn't in the bathroom.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The evening was a bust. I missed the game; instead of real food I had a piece of bad fish that gave me the runs; I had to sit through a tedious and mawkish movie; and I missed the game and got to sleep late. I couldn't help myself. I had to tell my wife how bad everything was. As usual, though, she had the last word.

“But you chose all the things we did. Next time I'll decide.”

Next episode: “It Goes Without Saying” – Why I don't like gays.

Wishing Will Make It So

 

God, grant me the serenity

To accept the things I cannot change;

Courage to change the things I can;

And wisdom to know the difference.

This was Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer dating back to the mid-1930s. It was known as the “Serenity Prayer,” and its message carries that emotion.

In January, 1946, addressing the Confessing Church in Frankfurt, Pastor Martin Niemöller said

“They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

It was for the wrong reasons, but Pastor Niemöller made the right decision. He acted from apathy – from a lack of concern about others – but had he spoken up, nothing would have changed, except for the likelihood that he, himself, would have been taken away sooner. It wasn't that he had the wisdom to be able to distinguish between what could and could not be changed; it was simply that he didn't want to get involved. But that was because even in retrospect – his poem was composed after the war – he saw words as his only option. Words. As if the pen were mightier than the sword. But it isn't. Words are certainly powerful, but that power has its limits.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More words: Every now and then I see a bumper sticker that reads, "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."

It's nonsense, of course; it's the kind of self-righteous and vacuous pronouncement that characterizes much moralistic rhetoric; the kind of philosophy that, some decades ago, produced "Make love, not war" and "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came" stickers -- stickers sported by people blinded to reality, who felt morally superior to those aware that the world contained individuals who preferred war to love -- who would come to a war -- people with whom we had to deal.

The unwritten message is that if someone attacks you, turn the other cheek; don't fight back. But that leaves you blind while the attacker can see. Or perhaps you are already blind. Turn a blind eye to evil and only the good are disabled.

An eye for an eye won't work. Certainly no eye for an eye rewards the "bad guy," putting him further ahead of the good. Even "an eye for an eye" merely allows him with more eyes to continue, coming out even or benefiting from the situation. It's the strategy of the war of attrition, of the uncaring who force those who do care to capitulate in order to prevent further loss of life. It's carried out by those who don't value the lives they sacrifice – especially if they're other people's lives, most especially women and children. President Reagan said, "History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

But must we wait to be blinded before responding? Should we not care when we're not directly involved? We tried isolationism and it failed. And what's a "proportionate" response to mass murder? Should the relatives of those who died on 9/11 be satisfied that those directly involved were killed? How do you dissuade those willing to die, or have others die, for their cause: those who know they'll ultimately be freed if captured before completing their missions – given another opportunity to murder? How do we discourage terrorist acts, apart from giving in to the terrorists or blaming their victims for existing? Sadly, the views of too many are governed by politics and economics rather than concern for right, wrong or justice. But I doubt that the families of the Lockerbie victims are comforted by the "rehabilitation" of Muammar al-Qaddafi,ⁱ or that the families of those killed on September 11th, 2001 get closure knowing that Saudi Arabia is our "good friend" and ally.

But what, if not "an eye for an eye?" If we cannot prevent murderous acts, two eyes for an eye or three or four will lessen the advantage, punishing those who choose violence. Disproportionate? Not really. They who would try only to limit rather than stop terrorists may feel morally superior, but any tyrant will gladly yield the moral high ground for the terrestrial low ground. They'll concede morality in a shot. But it's you who will be shot.ⁱⁱ Terrorists mustn't be appeased. Those who send others to murder are themselves murderers and should be punished appropriately. In times of peace the death penalty may be fit for debate, but wars must be fought with complete victory as the goal. Were we too quick to reject Senator Goldwater's 1964 "[E]xtremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" and to veto our generals' call to fight wars to win rather than to achieve a stalemate? Nearly one hundred years before Goldwater, President Lincoln spoke of "firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right ..."ⁱⁱⁱ Perhaps these should be our watchwords. "Firmness" and "Right." We shouldn't be embarrassed by fighting for what we know is right. We mustn't be blinded to what is right by moral relativism or self-defeating breast-beating. Our actions should be swift and overwhelming. "Shock and awe" may have been too limited geographically, and ended too soon. If our acts seem harsh, the costs of inaction must also be considered. After the "War to end all Wars" came the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) which outlawed war entirely. Then came Chamberlain's proclamation of "Peace in our time." But these were followed by the Holocaust and, more recently, Cambodia. And now we have Darfur, Rwanda and Mumbai. Still we have not reacted. The world is not Hollywood. Wishing won't make it so. Action is required.

Turning the other cheek, accepting less than justice may make us feel morally superior, but there is no superiority in death over life, no virtue in slavery over freedom. Refusing to fight back may make us feel good, but it will leave us, and the world, blind and in chains. Words have meaning. But without actions to accompany them – to back them up – they are self-indulgent tributes to our vanity, to moral superiority irrespective of the physical cost.

Though he believed we must accept the things we cannot change, it is worth noting that Reverend Niebuhr, in his “Serenity Prayer,” urged us to have the “Courage to change the things [we] can.” He was a “liberal” but supported interventionism and power politics, rather than depending on words and hope alone. We can all learn a lot from him.

Next episode: “Invitation To The Dance”

i     Or the “compassionate” release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

ii    Of course your mortality will be accompanied by morality. You'll die happy and virtuous.

iii    Was President Lincoln a war-monger and extremist? Should we reevaluate him, or our criteria for “extremist?”

Lessay Fare: Sir Oracle's Five-Percent No-Exercise Guaranteed Twelve-Step Weight-Loss Diet

 

I read somewhere that overweight is one of our country's greatest problems.ⁱ According to the papers, things will get worse as time goes by. As a public-spirited citizen, I feel obliged to offer the following personal weight-loss plan for your consideration. Diets abound, and their creators get rich, so I'll try as well. (Since I won't be selling any books, please send me cash – preferably crumpled, unmarked bills.) The diet is simple and straightforward. It requires no pills or shakes. And, contrary to other twelve step programs, it isn't linked to declarations of faith or spirituality. It requires action – though not exercise. (In that respect, sloth is greatly to be preferred.) Here it is. Just follow this plan to end obesity. You need take only one step per day. After all, a journey of a thousand calories starts with the first step.ⁱⁱ

     Step One: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday. (That's one-twentieth for the math challenged. You can do that.)

     Step Two: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Three: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Four: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Five: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Six: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Seven: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Eight: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Nine: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Ten: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Eleven: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Twelve: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

If my calculator is correct, you'll wind up eating about fifty-four percent of what you started with. Keep it up for a while. If that doesn't cause you to lose weight, you're cheating.

Remember: No pain, no loss.ⁱⁱⁱ

And in addition to being obvious, it's been scientifically shown that exercise makes you hungry. So don't exercise to lose weight.^iv The whole idea is a loser.

You should also cut back on fluids. All that propaganda about drinking lots of water is wrong. Water weighs sixty-two and a half pounds a cubic foot. It's bound to reflect negatively on what your scale tells you. If you've been brainwashed and you insist on water to clean the rest of you, however, don't waste your money on bottles. Drink tap water. You'll better maintain the weight of your wallet that way.^v You'll also get extra minerals. And, eschewing bottles, you'll avoid inflicting extra plastic on the environment. Isn't that special?

Is the diet safe. How should I know? What am I, a doctor?

Next episode: “Wishing Will Make It So” – Don't you just wish?

i     Personally I think it's the politicians, but there's little I can do about them.

ii     Please forgive me if I've misquoted Lao-Tzu. I'm confused.

iii    Or something like that.

iv    You probably won't have the strength for it anyway.

v    And the same is true if you cut back on your eating and spend less on food. “Organic,” “green,” and “natural” have little meaning apart from higher profits for their producers.

Politics As Usual

 

Conservatives and Liberals: they're all the same. Both Democrats and Republicans have been found to violate ethics standards; both engage in sexual abuse and extra-marital affairs. But that's because they're human; it has nothing to do with politics. Politicians are just interested in scoring points and getting elected.ⁱ The policies they claim to support are simply those they think will help in their quests. It's a problem for those who really believe in the policies.

Those in office press legislation that is likely to sound appealing to voters irrespective of the content of the bills. In fact, the congressional supporters may not even be aware of what is in the bills, but they're willing to back them in exchange for votes for their own legislation, for the inclusion of earmarks bringing benefits to their own constituents, or because there is a need to support the party position. Those out of office oppose any such legislation although they, too, may be completely unaware of the contents of the bills. It's a rare member of the opposition who will support a government initiative “on principle.” At the moment it is Democrats who are supporting proposals which are long, complex, and confusing, and though they may containing local or personal benefits, they are likely to be expensive, and, in the long run, short on the values they claim to promote. Many of them are unpopular for these reasons.ⁱⁱ And the Republicans oppose virtually any proposal by the Administration ostensibly for these reasons, but more likely in order to stymie any action which may benefit their opponents. As was recently said by a commentator,ⁱⁱⁱ if the Democrats favored motherhood,^iv the Republicans would oppose it. The same kind of behavior would hold, of course, if their roles were reversed.

But they're the only game in town. The various “third” parties usually have no chance of winning, or of governing if, by some miracle, they won. Not that it really matters. The middle level people – the “functionaries” – are the only ones who get anything done and they have no interest in official policy, only in what is likely to benefit or interest them and ensure their continuity in what are tenured positions. It really doesn't matter who is in office, except to those running for election.^v

That's a cynical position. I know that. But each time there is a new President or Congress it blames its failures on its predecessors and claims any successes for itself. And it winds up doing pretty much the same as that which preceded it. That's certainly true of the President who, during the campaign, may have sworn to make changes in the Government, but whose actions, when in office, usually mimic those of the previous President. That's not surprising. It's easier to make claims when you have no responsibility; and the desire to score points encourages such behavior.

That's the way our democracy works. Conservatives and Liberals have a lot in common. But many of our policies will remain unchanged irrespective of who's in charge. Typically these are foreign policy issues, however even some of our social policies have taken on lives of their own and their continuance is assured. We rant a lot and demand change, but fortunately we have one of the world's most stable governments, even if we are very negative about it.

The only solution is to be more positive and to play the hand we were dealt. It's a good one that really should please us. And it would if we took it more seriously. Not enough of us vote because not enough of us care. In reality, I'm not sure the result would be any different if there were greater participation, but it's worth a try. The Founding Fathers set a course for us that may not be perfect, but it seems to work.^vi And despite our efforts to change everything, our democracy is holding up. We've tried all kinds of changes, toward more conservative and more liberal, but we come back to the same overall policies no matter who's in charge. Maybe we've tried too hard to change and not hard enough to follow our original principles. Perhaps we should return to them.

It's worth a try. We've exhausted the alternatives.

Next episode: “Lessay Fare” – That's easy for me to say.

i      As well, of course, as their general human interests in the earthly pleasures.

ii     Who knows what it will be after Election Day.

iii    I don't remember who it was, but I heard it on the radio. It's got to be true.

iv    This is not the best place to discuss abortion policies.

v    They tell us it's critical to us, but the only change that will occur if they're elected is that they get the paycheck and the note on their resumé. It really won't help us at all.

vi    The main interest of the political parties is in the Funding Fathers.  They have little interest in the Founding Fathers.