Superheros

Our culture, one of mesmerizing electronic communication, decreasing recognition of reality, and a change in our reading habits and our heros, has been taking place. The understanding of our world, long a subject that used to require both effort and education, has been replaced by Wikipedia and Google, and classics of the past have been replaced by today's graphic novels.

But the heros whose feats we celebrate are aging, and it is becoming harder and harder to relate to them. They do not reflect us – our lives and hopes as Superman (1933), Batman (1939), and Wonder Woman (1942) did in the past. And the ones who have been appearing to assist and replace them are false syntheses based on Harry Potter, and by other such dissimulations as have captured the modern imagination – books, movies, and toys.

If they are to be replaced and accepted, it should be by real people – genuine characters who reflect us. They shouldn't be mythical or mystical constructs, but heros who mean something to us – who would be loved, and who would be representative of the kind of people we are. They would exemplify the diversity of society. In search of such real people I consulted my copy of Encyclopedia Remarkabilia (Extraorinaire Publishing Company) to locate typical members of our society on whom we could and should call to save our society. I offer two of them for your consideration. There are, of course, many others who are equally deserving of our honor.

Smyrna and Magnesia Miller were identical male twins born in a small town just outside of Keokuk, Iowa (between Keokuk and Alexandria) where they grew up unhappily. Both had gender dysphoria and both considered themselves female, but because of outdated scientific beliefs, they were not permitted to transfer from the male wrestling team at their high school to the female team. At the age of fourteen they were both bitten by the love bug (a tick) whose body fluid had three different kinds of effects on them: superimposed on their male DNA and their muscles, they had the power and wiliness of Amazons, and, secondly, the bug also had implanted in them, a love for each other. (It wasn't clear whether the two of them were translesbians or transgays, but it was certain that their passion for each other constituted incest.)

It is the third effect (not to mention their costumes), however, that makes them well-suited for the role we call upon them to play. They're able to divine whether others are telling the truth. This relates to both what they believe to be true and what they know to be factual. They can alert other superheros – at least bona fide ones – as towhether someone is disclosing his true identity (especially gender) and making valid statements or claims on which the others must rely. It is the ability to sense when all is not as it appears.

Their strength and cunning are also of help when it comes to helping the others out when there is a desperate situation. But though they sometimes work alone – a nod both to females and members of the LGBTQ community – they would more frequently assist their superhero colleagues.

Wouldn't it be exciting – wouldn't it be refreshing – if twenty-first superheros looked like twenty-first century people; if they looked like you and me?

Oh.

They don't look like you?

Your fault. Learn the drill. It starts with sensitivity. And truth.

The Rabbit Died

At one time those were the code words meaning that a woman was pregnant. We didn't say the word “pregnant” in public then. We were too delicate. Maybe the rabbit didn't think so, though. She gave her life to confirm (or not to confirm – she died irrespective of the test's outcome) the pregnancy. Actually she didn't really “give” her life. (It was taken from her by some doctor or lab technician who wanted to take a peek at her ovaries.) But she died for a good cause. Her involuntary forfeiture made the arrival of the stork more understandable.

Times change, though. Nowadays even if we didn't have more advanced tests – ones not requiring the sacrifice of the rabbit – we would find a way to protect the poor animal from harm, even if we chose to kill the fetus. The protection of animals has become an important priority in our culture, and among strict vegans (it would be disingenuous to suggest that all vegans are cut from the same cloth) it is considered improper to “exploit” animals in any way. Many, in fact, eschew almonds (http://almondsarenotvegan.com/) because the pollination of almond trees requires bees. (Of course, there's no denying the fact that if that is your approach, virtually all the fruits and vegetables we eat – or use for clothing, construction, etc. – suffer from the same kind of shortcoming (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees) which limits the intake of those who won't eat animal products either. But I won't pursue that point except to note that wiseGEEK tells us that honey bees pollinate about $15 billion worth of crops in the United States each year. So it's an economic issue as well as a moral one.

We live in a time of animal rights – and human wrongs. While cruelty to animals ought not be accepted, advocates of those rights – those who speak for animals – sometimes lack perspective. According to the first chapter of the Bible, “G-d said 'Let us make man in our image and likeness. Let him dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky … and every land animal that walks the earth. … G-d said to them [humans], … Fill the land and conquer it.
'” Not everyone accepts this teaching, but it is hard to contradict the evolutionary tree that puts humans at the top of the animal kingdom – a fact that those who disdain “speciesism” consider anthropocentric. (Plants and other Eukaryota are beneath, while farther down the tree are the Archaea and Bacteria. Where viruses fit in is not clear. But what is evident is that the distinction between plants and animals simply reflects which branches we mark off as being significant. The DNA sequences of all living things have much in common because they ultimately evolved from the same common ancestors. Humans, for example, share about 50% of the same DNA sequences that occur in bananas.) There is a hierarchy, however, whether we're comfortable with that fact or not.  (Incidentally, see http://www.wisegeek.com/are-vegetables-dead-when-you-buy-them-at-a-grocery-store.htm. It may be food for thought for some vegans.) 

Notwithstanding the reality, however, there are many whose mission it is to prevent exploitation of animals and to protect them from humanity (as an example, see http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm). For some the commitment is absolute, even if the implications are not fully appreciated. For example, electricity which is usually produced through the burning of fossil fuels, and transportation based on the same form of energy do not raise a second thought, while a well-kept horse who pulls a wagon is being exploited.

There are, however, exceptions to the rules of animal protection. No one would think of trying to stop a large fish from eating one that is smaller, nor prevent a lion from stalking an antelope. And you'd probably fail if you tried switching a predator to kale. Nurture shouldn't be, and, in fact, isn't always victorious over nature. Nor morality over reality. In terms of dietary preferences, for example, while some may view veganism as morally superior to carnivorism, the latter is normal, and not evil, for some species.

And animals have long played an important part in our lives. They were prominent in mythology (eg Pegasus, mermaids, and satyrs), we used them for prophesy (reading entrails), they were food and sacrifices, we hunted and fished – even using live bait, we used them for transportation and agriculture, pulling carriages and chariots among other things, and we benefit even now from their use socially and for entertainment, as guide dogs and therapy animals and in zoos. And, as I have mentioned, they played a large part in our farming (herding and providing organic manure in addition to pulling plows), medicine (think cow pox and Botox for example), as well as house pets (do veterinarians exploit animals?).

Which of these uses represents inappropriate use? Which is inherently evil? Cannibalism, of course. But to avoid them all we'd have to go back hundreds or thousands of years, and even then we wouldn't succeed. We have always exploited animals for our benefit – and some of them have eaten us when they had the chance. Nature has made us what we are. Our intelligence – which is greater than that of a banana or a rabbit – has given us domain over many other forms of life.

My intelligence, however, sets the limits for me. I oppose cruelty, to animals – human and not. That includes medical use as well as hunting for sport. But I do not turn away from reality. I would not bounce a ball on an ant, but I recognize that I step on some unintentionally. And I endorse the use of medicines to kill parasites – vegetable or animal. I see the value of a veterinarian if not a taxidermist. And a Saint Bernard with brandy.

And I love a steak.

Next episode: “Arts and Science” – We're in the “Age of Enlightenment,” but not of discernment.

The Latest News

I was a little hard on the press a few days ago when I discussed the business of selling the news.ⁱ I wasn't wrong, but I didn't go far enough in handing out blame. Not that the media are clear. They're not. But they're only greedy capitalistsⁱⁱ who are responding to the real villains – US.

From their point of view, they're only doing what the Constitution – specifically the First Amendment – guarantees. They're exercising freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Most of them are simply conveying what they've heard – from other news services, from their own reporters, or from press releases distributed by everyone from commercial enterprises to governments. Some of it is reasonably accurate, if you exclude the self-serving and the blatantly opinionated (as you might find in editorials, columns, and advocacy journalists, as well the advertisements that are made to look like the news).

Advertising. That's where the real money is. The majority of a newspaper'sⁱⁱⁱ income, on average, is derived from advertising.^iv And, in large part, it's easy money. Not that it's easy to get the advertising – although an ad is often the best way to induce the public to buy a product or buy into an idea, so the purveyor may be eager to find space for it – but more important to the paper, it is generally press-ready and comes straight from the vendor or his agency, requiring relatively little work on the part of the paper. A good ad sells, so they're crafted by psychologists and other experts.

But it can only sell something if it's seen. And the more people who see it, the better the odds. Which brings us back to the original question: how do you sell newspapers? In the last message I outlined some of kinds of “news” that you're likely to have presented to you. It's hard, though, to ignore the reason for those “stories:” because they sell. People buy the papers that contain the most bizarre and titillating contents. That's what we want – not news but entertainment.^v

So if that's what we want, we shouldn't fault the media for providing it. Their goal is to increase the number of consumers. Large circulation numbers increase the cost of their advertisements and their total revenue. Everybody wins – the papers, the advertisers, and the readers.

Well, almost everybody. Those who are really interested in the news have to be careful. So much of it is slanted, omitted, and sensationalized because the media have learned that that's what their public wants. Truth is a secondary issue. A guarantee of freedom of speech is a protection for the source, not the consumer. The public, however, can learn from good journalistic practice, even if the media don't always follow it. If you're interested in accuracy you'd be well advised to check multiple sources. At least two. It's worth getting confirmation of a story before you believe it. If you read for entertainment, confirmation isn't necessary, but if you really want accurate news, it is.

Two sources. It's a small number, but it's worth getting before you believe big news.

I        Small Numbers, Big News – December 29, 2014.

ii       They have stockholders who are in it for the money. As patriotic and as desirous of maintaining American freedoms, the stockholders are really eager to make as much money as they can. And who can blame them? They have expenses like the rest of us.

iii      As I said in the previous essay, whenever I mention “newspaper” I am speaking of the media in general. It's convenient shorthand.

iv       It's not what it used to be but it's still high. See http://www.naa.org/Trends-and-Numbers/Newspaper-Revenue/Newspaper-Media-Industry-Revenue-Profile-2013.aspx

v        Television “news” programs have also turned into “magazines” in which gossip and personalities are more important than hard news. And it's hard not to find reality shows on the screen. They have replaced reality because we want to be entertained, not informed.

Its Weakest Members

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menⁱ are created equal, ...”

The Declaration of Independence said that, but no one takes it seriously – at least not in that form.

“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ...”

Now we're heading back toward reality. Clearly there are differences that are governed by DNA. There are differences in sexual anatomy between men and women, there are differences related to physical status, appearance, and development, and there are differences in mental capacity, there are others related to susceptibility to diseases, and many others. But there are even more, and perhaps more significant, differences between people.

“that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”ⁱⁱ

It's finally clear that the “unalienable” rights refer to an individual's situation, not to his physical appearance.ⁱⁱⁱ With this knowledge, however it becomes even more obvious that those who believe this must be aware that the rights with which we are endowed are not necessarily the rights all people enjoy. Too many people are born into poverty and starvation, into bondage, and into families that are incapable of caring for the – perhaps because they do not wish to do so.

It seems unfair.

But that is the kind of society we would create if we could. For the principles that Jefferson espoused were goals rather than realities. David Hume wrote about the distinction and confusion between descriptive and prescriptive views – the “is-ought” dichotomy^iv – and it seems clear that the Founding Fathers had “ought” in mind when they met and discussed the separation from the Crown and the creation of a new country. It's hard to otherwise imagine what Jefferson, a slaveholder, was thinking when he wrote about “Liberty,” or what the writers and the Constitution meant when they defined a slave as three-fifths of a person. It's clear they were talking about goals – what should be – rather than what was a reality, or seemed to be a practical plan for that time. Their intent was to describe the order that they hoped would result from their efforts – eventually if not immediately.

They had in mind what so many before and since pictured as a utopia. What was yet to come were the communes and settlements, and what they hadn't considered was that they were calling for an end to free enterprise, personal initiative, and property,^v which were the anchors of the society they desired. In their zeal, they did not realize that subsequent generations would find, in their words, an argument for social equality, a “leveling of the playing field.”

Clearly that isn't what they meant. They understood “equality” to be referring to equality before the law and equality of opportunity. As time has passed, however, we have turned, more and more, to the ideas of the level playing field. We have accepted the admirable goal in which “equality” is almost identical to “sameness.” We aim for an egalitarian society in which there are no rich and poor, but everyone is the same. We have internalized the idea that “A society is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”^vi We have instituted programs of entitlements and charity that are intended to equalize the situations of rich and poor^vii – at least our own rich and poor.^viii

The reality, unfortunately, is that our founders were probably better judges of character than we. They recognized that there are differences among people, some of which are inborn, but some reflect the disposition of the individual. The ambitious was entitled to a reward for his action, while the lazy might be aided, but only minimally. Inborn errors, both physical and mental, were the responsibility of society even though society wasn't responsible for them. Equalizing the treatment of all members – its weakest and its strongest – is not only impossible but reflects questionable wisdom. Support of our weakest members is admirable and appropriate, but it should not stifle the productivity the rest.

That is a lesson we have yet to learn. When we give a prize to every child so as to boost his self-esteem; when we teach a class at a low level so the slowest will be able to “succeed” – ignoring the capable so as not to “hurt” those less so; when we encourage and support the poor by taking from those who have more, we are running the risk of damaging society. Elevating the measure of our society by trying to equalize the lot of its weakest members sounds better than it is. The founders sought only equality of opportunity – political and economic. They knew that they couldn't correct a malformed limb or inculcate ambition in the lazy or virtue in born deceivers. All that would be achieved would be the discouragement of those who were productive.

Equality, however desirable, is very much like utopia. It is impossible. Our ancestors knew this. They knew the difference between is and ought. We should learn from them.

Next episode: “Obama, Roosevelt, And Rocky” – Dealing with children and other problems.

i       People.

ii      Thomas Jefferson wrote these inspiring words, in large part basing them on the work of Locke and on the Virginia Declaration of Right which was largely written by George Mason. Interestingly both indicated that property was primarily what “happiness” meant.

iii      Actually all babies look alike, and they all look like Winston Churchill.

iv        A Treatise of Human Nature, 1739.

v      As was noted earlier (see endnote ii), property was what was understood to be a basic component of happiness. For many of the signers, a “man” was defined as a white male property owner. He was entitled to Life and Liberty. As the Virginia Declaration of Rights says, “... all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” That declaration was adopted on June 12, 1776, just before the Declaration of Independence.

vi      There is considerable dispute concerning the origin of this idea and among those to whom it has been attributed are Churchill, Pope John Paul II, Dostoyevsky, Truman, and Cardinal Roger Mahony. Ghandi, who was more spiritual (or less concerned with his brothers) than most wrote: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” I'd pay more attention to people.

vii      We consider it the responsibility of the rich to support the poor through taxes and assesments. Thus their property is communal (community) property. Perhaps the Founding Fathers viewed the matter differently – perhaps they didn't accept the concept of socialism – however times and philosophies have changed. George Mason may have frowned on the idea that his descendants might be “ deprive[d] or divest[ed of] their ... means of acquiring and possessing property,” but that was an eighteenth century idea. We know better now.

viii      It is surely logical to assume that such equalization should include all people in all countries, but that doesn't seem to have been offered yet as a program. Chances are, though, that it will be at some time in the future.

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?”