Can We Talk?

Islamophobia is bad. It paints an entire population with the faults of some. If most Muslims favor Sharia law and the destruction of Western culture, that is their right. Criticism of their views, however, is not ours. In the United States if there is a verbal expression of anxiety over the fact of Islamic ideas it is considered “hate” speech. If someone labels a terrorist bombing or other incident as a terrorist bombing or other incident, it is viewed by many as Islamophobia and shifts guilt from the bomber to the one speaking. Academia has created “safe spaces” where students, purportedly in universities to learn the views of the world around them, can protect themselves from ideas they don't want to hear.

There is a German song, “Die Gedanken sind frei” – Thoughts are free. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedoms of speech, thought, and religion, but that only seems to apply if the concept you're considering is in fashion politically, and if it can be taken out of context to make a political point or to express something fashionable. You may decry whatever “common knowledge” has decided is evil, but not any thoughts you may have about some taboo topic. Thoughts are free but not their expression.

Muslims participated in slave trade long before it became a way of life in America. And most of the African blacks who wound up here were rounded up by black African leaders who made a great profit from the transactions. We don't talk about that – that part of history is of no interest to us. Rather we undo American history by desecrating and destroying as many as we can of those aspects of the slave trade and the Confederacy with which we disagree. They may have been blights on our heritage (irrespective of how they were viewed at the time), but the blight – and responsibility for indemnification and apology are ours, and not in any way associated with those who sold us the slaves. Vilifying America is virtuous – especially if accompanied by mass action. It is an expression of freedom of speech. But we are not free to question that point of view. We are bigots if we do so. The only thing we're privileged to discuss is what happened in our country, not elsewhere. Context is irrelevant. And discussion of context is forbidden in safe spaces.

Let's take another example. Antisemitism has been around for millennia. And that includes the United States where it can still be found. We don't talk about it. Prejudice against Jews and many other groups – is not a subject of conversation. There is no discussion of “Affirmative Action” anchored in the quotas of the past. It is of no interest to universities. And, of course, what happened to them in the past – history – is not our concern if it doesn't fit into the current narrative. What fits should be excoriated in the names of justice and free speech. What contradicts our current views is hateful and its discussion should be repressed, irrespective of the means necessary.

One more example: whatever is said against blacks or Muslims is hate speech. If it is mentioned at all in the media it is only to be condemned. Better – it should not be mentioned at all. Similar accusations against conservatives, however, are not only legitimate – whether false or true – should be shouted from the rooftops. And those having a different opinion are bigots. Our media tell us so.

Look at the New York Times on almost any day. (That paper is merely my example because I live in New York, but I suspect the pattern holds true in most homes of “liberalism” – the only truly American point of view.) The opinion section is almost entirely about the evils of conservatives and conservatism. It is heavy-handed and it rarely prints contrary ideas, no matter how important and logical the perspectives are – and it's only to provoke outrage among its readers. That's expressed in the letters they choose to print.

Worse. Conservative views are overlooked and even the “objective” articles are filled with the newspaper's opinion (advocacy journalism). Indeed, the choice of what “news” to cover seems to be based on a paper's editorial views, rather than its inherent worthiness.

In short, free speech seems to be limited to politically acceptable ideas. Anything contrary to them is beyond the pale and should be suppressed. In part it's about (political) fashion, but more important it's about the Constitution, and what students nowadays are taught is its meaning and that of the amendments.

Can we talk? Only if you say what I want to hear.

Mixed Grill XIII

Number 13. Do you feel lucky? It's called self-delusion.

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

Poll Tax – Warsaw's unique method of simultaneously discouraging democracy and raising revenues

Latin Mass – Making eternal use of Catholic energy in the obligation of conversion

Cogito Ergo Sum – Descartes's fingerless (and precocious) take on chisanbop

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. (Albert Einstein)

Silent Knight – Ninja

World Atlas – Strongest man on earth

What shall we do with the drunken sailor? – I suggest a twelve-step plan. If he wants to be helped

Irony is wasted on the stupid. (Oscar Wilde)

Anything Grows – Universal potting soil

Age of Enlitenment – And lower calories

Well wisher – A silver dollar works best

For your interest, I found the following on line:

Humans sometimes have unshakeable beliefs about irrational things, such as trusting a rabbit's foot or planning one's life around astrology. In 2014, the Chapman University Survey of American Fears attempted to quantify this in a comprehensive study of the fears, phobias, and irrational beliefs of 2,500 American adults. One interesting statistic they discovered was that roughly 20 percent of the respondents believed that the legendary Bigfoot exists. And about the same number of those polled said they were confidant that the universe began with the Big Bang. The study also found that believing in certain paranormal phenomena such as being able to influence the world with one's thoughts or being able to predict the future based on dreams were fairly widespread views.

Slightly more than 40 percent of those polled they believed in UFOs, a considerably higher number than those who were confident that global warming is real.

Democrats who participated in the survey were more likely than Republicans to believe in fortune-telling, and they were twice as likely to believe in astrology.

The Republicans polled were significantly more likely than Democrats to say that Satan causes most of the evil in the world.

It's no wonder that our country is in trouble.

Flying high – I'd find a different pilot

Holy roller – A natural, for charity

Transparency – Twenty-first century version of spin

A free society is a place where it's safe to be unpopular (Adlai Stevenson) – It's clear that academia is not a safe place.  It's "safe space" is only for jasagers 

He died peacefully in his sleep – Or, at least, if he was awake and suffering he didn't disturb me

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step – Ideally to the airport taxi

It takes a village to raze a child – Not ideal for the child but it appeases the gods and keeps them off our backs for a year

Demoncrats – The enemies of the Publicans. Led by Carrie Nation

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

On this date in 1979 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became the first Supreme Leader of Iran. Are you going to celebrate?

Presumption Of Innocence

I have in my hand a list of 37 State Department employees who are members of the Communist Party or are fellow travelers.

            McCarthyism. Bad.

9 women have accused X of making the workplace uncomfortable.

           Accusations of sexual harassment. Good.

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

He is running in the election against our president. He is an enemy of the state. Send him to Siberia.

           Political dissent. Unacceptable.

Burning the flag and your draft card. Fleeing the country.

           Political dissent. Laudable.

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

Buying products made in China.

            Supporting a unfriendly government. Risky.

Buying American.

            Prices may be higher but it's for our own benefit.

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

Supporting the Founding Fathers (bigots) and the Constitution (bigoted).

            You're a bigot too. (Acceptance of a contrary idea constitutes – requires – a label.)

Letting the president and supreme court decide what's in our best interests. They know better than we what's good for us. Forget Congress. They can't make up their minds anyway. They'll never pass the Taylor Swift act even though American lives are involved.

            You're a patriot.

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

“I know you're an atheist but I pray for your eternal soul.”

           Hate speech. Bad.

Rape.

           Clearly a crime of love. Good.

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

Stand for the National Anthem.

            Support for our country. Perverse.

Kneel for the same.

            Loyalty to justice. Opposition to fascism. Admirable.

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

You may not agree with all these assessments. That's up to you. You have a right to your own opinion. You're free to express your own ideas. But you have no right to impose them on others. Sure, you have no sanction for harming another, but, as the German folk song says, “Die Gedanken Sind Frei.”

The American Constitution, which you may or may not support, includes this position, although there are different interpretations of what the guarantee means – especially when it seems to conflict with another right. Still, it's there. In the First Amendment. It's part of the basis of the American system of justice. As is the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved.

That's not the way it always works, however. The only swift justice we provide is a lynch mob.

I heard on the radio yesterday that Garrison Keillor was fired by PBS because he is alleged to have touched a woman in an uncovered part of her back. What part of her back was uncovered and why, were not disclosed, but Mr. Keillor claims that he was only giving her a hug of comfort at a time she was saddened. In an age where hugging is in fashion it's difficult to fault such an act. In any event, the System decided that no explanation or justification was necessary when they terminated him, and the media decided that the incident was newsworthy.

But that's the current Zeitgeist. Trials no longer are reserved for the courts but are the arena of politicians, the media, police departments, and the public. And the last category includes industry leaders, who fear the public relations and economic implications of association with someone tainted by public and media outcry. There has been a sudden rush to reveal past indiscretions – mostly the responsibility of others – which they feared to mention earlier. Skin contact is harassment, though I must admit that I shook a woman's (ungloved) hand once. It's important, as Mr. Keillor has learned, to find out what skin is off limits and if there are any exceptions. The presence of a duéna (chaperon) at all times would help to solve this problem.

A similar topic is dress codes. Men are justifiably accused of exposing themselves to attract a woman's attention. A woman may achieve the same goal by covering herself in alluring clothing – long splits in long skirts or none (needed) in short skirts, see through clothing, exposed undergarments (especially from Victoria's Secret), and clothing that emphasizes or discloses body parts. Women claim that they like the outfits, but they are designed (usually by men) to attract men's attentions. And if they are successful it is those wearing them who are being harassed.

Notwithstanding the long delays in the disclosures (by the way, as a child I was a liberal, though that is not true any more, since I want to distance myself from the left's predisposition to prejudice – especially antisemitism and Islamophilia), Ill take them at face value and support trial on the evidence (though it is hard to imagine what evidence apart from claimed personal recollections my be available decades after the incidents) if that is the wish of the involved parties, but if not, or there is no conviction, they should be presumed innocent (though it's hard to regain a reputation tainted by conviction in the press which, at times, acts as judge and jury). That's the way it is with most other accusations. And even if we suspect jury tampering or threats, if a court finds a defendant “not guilty” he is not guilty. And it's virtually impossible to get your name off the sexual offenders registry. (And the drunk drivers and bank robbers registries for that matter. Oh, wait. There are none.)

That's enough ranting about the specific. In general, however, my concern is that we get what we contracted for – swift justice and the presumption of innocence unless legally convicted of whatever it is that we are accused of doing. It may not get the press as much attention as current practices, but it's a lot fairer. We cannot correct the wrongs of the past with wrongs of the present. It's clear that society now encourages speaking out so that arguments in the future about not doing so will be less believable. And early trials, in the courts, are needed without overexposure in the press.

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

I said just yesterday that the essays to follow would only be fragments, but the situation with Garrison Keillor was more than I could handle in a short note. I'll try to prevent the long- winded ones in the future.

November 30, 2017

Fragments I

Sexuality

I started this recently but I have more questions than answers – both on this subject and others. In fact I've started a bunch of essays, but lack the patience to finish them. They contain ideas I haven't worked out, but the questions come rapidly and time is limited, so I leave it to you to work out the kinks, or whatever else you find. If you're interested. You can send me your take (if you want to) via “Comments” at the end. Sometimes they'll involve one subject and sometimes there'll be multiple subjects – like “Various Thoughts.” Not to worry, though. All will be named “Fragments” so you can decide to skip them if you choose.

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

Over the years the conversation has changed. When I was growing up, sex was a taboo subject but now it's part of normal conversation on the radio and television; in the media, the movies, the theater and even in political conversations.

And when I was growing up, no one talked about homosexuality; the group now designated as LGBTQ didn't exist. No one discussed ED or other sexual dysfunction. There was no such a thing as sexual dysphoria and transgender conduct. Either they were all well hidden or they didn't exist. It's now fashionable to introduce sexual issues at all possible times. The closet door is open and no holds are barred.

But in addition to discussing the joys of sex, there has been an upturn in the extent of talking about sex itself, and it's effects on society. Not only does this involve sexual preferences and practices, but also their misuse – especially in the past.

Men have always been men and I doubt that there has been a significant change in the number of rapes, although terminology my be different since the institution of marriage. It's reasonably certain that political affiliations don't affect the incidence. Whether you favor evolution or another mechanism, as the cause, but is the current flurry strictly a result of DNA?

And women have always been women. Lysistrata made it clear that divisions of power were not absolute. And Joan of Arc, various saints and courtesans, the Amazons, and what we can glean from a plethora of historic and literary works suggest that not very much has changed over the years apart from society's reaction to the situation, and the conversation.

In recent days there has been a spate or stories, accusations, allegations about sexual abuse, although there is no good definition of the term. Most of them relate to incidents that are said to have occurred decades ago, and are being reported now. Which raises two questions – why are they being reported in such an inflammatory manner, and why now – following the admissions of an admitted participant who was elected president, although prior presidential misbehavior usually went unpunished or was ignored or played down? Whether the confrontations occurred is not the issue. It's likely that's so in most (but not all) cases, though the recollection of detail may be faulty, or self-serving, or both. In days past the accusers would have been suspected of collaboration. It would have been assumed that the women were trading themselves for employment or other fiscal advantage and were complaining that they didn't get what they wanted, or they were somehow trying to shift the blame to someone else lest their families disown them.

When, and this probably applies to most cases, the accusations were factual, the delay may have resulted from fear of retaliation by the powerful man, or shame concerning the incident. The current slant of society places greater emphasis on the complaints and the likelihood of guilt on the accused. One accusation breeds many, primarily of actual incidents, which are usually remembered favorably and involve famous people – newsworthy ones with deep pockets. I discussed this situation before, but I'd look at the issue from a different perspective now.

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

Large number of allegations about sexual abuse (needs definition). (Slacks and drab outfits are satisfactory during the day but, more alluring outfits are used in romantic situations, though the women my claim that they are wearing what they like.) Allegations by a wide variety of men against both men and women years, and decades after the events cited are dealt with in other subsequent essay.

Why do women prefer enticing clothing but deny that it is men they want to entice?

Now Why, And Why Now? – “Justifications”

Societal, fear at the time, revenge, self-image, political, bandwagon, profit, fame

What constitutes “consensual?”

Calendars – cheesecake, beefcake

Whistles

Does it matter who says? – “nigger” or “bitch” – Is it permitted among some?

“I love it when you talk dirty” – Men and women”

At what point does dirty talk become an offense?

Sexuality

Men speech, women clothing –Both may incite “unwanted” contact.  Sages mandate tznius clothing by women so as not to incite their passions.  It was a problem then.

Some women state that a woman's search for sexuality is the same as a man's. Should an accusation against a woman rate the same headlines as on against a man? Should the penalties for the two sexes be the same?

Demand for equality despite DNA. Some women want to be the “same” as men irrespective of the differences. What should be the response to demands for equal salaries for those who want to choose their own work hours or have less experience on the job?

Sports handicaps – Should they persist or has Billie Jean King made equality legitimate and a 5' 2” woman should be welcomed into the NBA?

November 27, 2017

Harebrained Schemes 8

Have you ever noticed a strange smell in your house? It's more common in the country than in the city. Smells like a dead animal but you can't locate it? Don't be surprised. You're not equipped to. Evolution may have improved your intellectual standing above the “lower” animals, but it has taken away much of your ability to locate and identify odors and their sources. Most of us don't eat roadkill or its variants, so why be able to identify and locate it?

Cats For Rent would solve this problem at a rate cheaper than an exterminator. No white jackets and fancy equipment. Just some hungry cats (they haven't been fed in days – it lowers costs and improves results) that are let loose in your residence. If they can't find the source quickly, no exterminator can. And in addition to cash for their owner, you've provided food for starving animals. It's all very green.

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

Who's around to hear what people will say at his funeral. OK. At a roast of an entertainment star people speak up while you're still alive, but they usually insult you for the laughs. Very nice, very friendly, and totally insincere.

What you really want to hear are compliments – whether deserved or not. That's insincere too, but you want to take it seriously, and you want the guests to do so as well. Some of what the speakers say will be true but most will be exaggerated. So what. It's the first time in your life (wrong word?) that you're shown the respect you think you deserve. But you never hear it. The words either don't get into that wood box, or you don't hear them for some other reason.

There's batting practice before a baseball game, rehearsals before a show opens, and even preplanning of a funeral. Why not include the rehearsal of a funeral service so the guest of honor will hear the accolades. He can even edit and add to them so no one will be unaware of the accomplishments he considers most important, but which would probably be omitted by those who don't know him a well as he does. Or are less impressed by the “accomplishment's” importance. And he can suggest “slaps” at those who offended him.

It would be a good money raiser for the funeral home and, with an unhealthy meal following, there may be some heart attacks that will up the earnings..

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

There's a spate of accusations of sexual abuse going around. They're usually blamed on men and attributed to DNA that lets testosterone run loose, and society's willingness to overlook the idea that “boys will be boys.”

Those are certainly contributing factors, but not the critical ones. Periodically we read about a female predator – usually a school teacher or someone in industry who heads a department or section. In those instances, testosterone isn't the issue – power is. Control. Women took advantage of men or boys who feared that their rejection of their superior (or squealing) would result in punishment, while acceptance of the “opportunity” would lead to advancement. As Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts.”

Which leads me to a simple solution, and a chance to kill two birds with one stone. (Actually two directly and others in passing.) The answer is to bar men from leadership positions in all fields until a clear pattern of sexual abuse by women is established. The “one stone” of which I wrote would, along the way, immediately shatter the “glass ceiling.” (Other likely results would be that there would be a change in the pattern of wage inequality – perhaps only the direction – and an alteration in birthrate statistics.) What the Hell. It's worth a try.

November 21, 2017

Mixed Grill Number N

I won't give up even if you say you don't like these.

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

But soft. What light through yonder window breaks? – Westinghouse soft white light. But what breaks the window is a golf ball.

Toscanini – Mindless opera lover.

Cutie Pie – Who knew quince and tangelo would go so well together?

Television – Speak to a spook.

Sincere – It's too darned hot.

Parsimony – Cost of a wedding. License extra.

Down by the riverside – The feral dogs had goose for dinner last night.

Sextant – Send naughty message to mom's sister.

Palestine – Crius and Eurybia's son invented a new drink, and then the right cup.

L. L. Bean – Overpriced clothes from overpriced wrapper.

Syntax – Worth every cent.

David – Nathaniel Parker.

Hopalong Cassidy – Dance or I'll shoot your other leg.

Concierge service – Same service but higher price.

Rin Tin Tin – Dog for Hergé's creation.

Bookie of the month club – Pay up or else.

Past participle – Now that you passed it, move on to Perfect.

The Last of the Mohicans – Styles change.

I'll take the high road – Accompanied by Mary Jane.

Skeleton key – See MANIAC list or visit Loch Ness.

Thumbs – Look-alikes on social media and future fortune for orthopedists.

Never give a sucker an even break – Crush it over ice cream.

13 “Likes” – Mindy used 13 “Akhs” in her Assyrian Facebook entry. At least in the first sentence.

G rope – Go for the G string.

Crosby, Hope, and Bowdler – Morocco bound

Kill time – Might as well before it kills you.

Don't kill the messenger – Hough him and let him crawl back.

In the twinkling of an I – Narcissist's hopes and dreams.

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

Well I like them. At least most of them.

November 21, 2017

Safe Spaces And Dangerous Places

I've come to the conclusion that one of the most dangerous places around is home. Not physically, but from the perspective of free speech. I arrived at that determination after learning that one of the reasons that academic institutions were establishing “safe spaces” was that students wanted a place to express their own opinions, and didn't want to hear someone offering anything that was in conflict with it. It's likely that in their own homes they were expected to be seen but not heard. So what they couldn't say at home was what they sought to have a place to say in the university.

It's a noble idea to want to exercise your right of free speech, although I think that the students, and more regrettably the universities, are missing the point. It was my (naïve) belief that one of the main purpose of higher education was to expose the students to ideas that differed from the ones with which they were familiar. It was all part of the learning process, and the goal was to prepare students for the “real” world where they would have to hear such ideas and analyze them so they could make their own decisions.

Perhaps I was mistaken, and I am confused about the role of the university. If those in academia consider their obligation to be to make students comfortable, the approach is reasonable. As would more parties be, except that some of their charges may take such revelry as a form of “microaggression,” and they might be offended and protest.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding both the university's goal and the way that it is satisfying student needs during the time that it is broadening their perspectives. Unlikely as it may be, the path to the toleration, and, indeed, the celebration, of real free speech and education may be viewed as requiring students to be led there slowly. And universities bay be subtly trying to bring their novices to that path.

Trying to imagine how that might be done, I wonder if what these in loco parentis institutions do is to assign every new student to a single room where there is no one to disagree with him (or her). Any visitor to that room will be expected to agree with all the opinions he expresses. And that means that when he visits a friend in another room – and college freshmen (and women) are a gregarious lot – it is incumbent on him to listen to, and to agree with, the views expressed by the room's occupant. Whether or not he agrees with what he hears, if he wants friends he'll have to tolerate their views. Maybe he'll even pay attention to what they think, and the thinking behind it. Sometimes the views of others make sense.

Having said it, however, I don't believe it. From what I've seen in the media, I am of the opinion that the universities are among the most dangerous places for learning that exist. Blame it on society itself if you choose, but there is an increasing focus on the spoken word and its implications. Fearing offending others and the “slippery slope” of faulting those who fault our society, students slide, instead on the slippery slope of intolerance of opinions that they think may not be popular or in keeping with their own. They don't want to hear them, and they don't want others to hear them. Instead of free speech, which they claim to support, they favor limiting speech to fashionable opinions – opinions in which they've been indoctrinated.

And the universities are supportive. Many of the faculty came of age at a time when rebellion and opposition to “the establishment” were de rigueur and they applaud, and encourage, such an approach on the part of those under their tutelage. It is their mission to inculcate distrust in them – distrust of the culture in which they live and distrust of any who support it or who disagree with them. People like that are wrong and have no right to be heard. They're Nazis, or supporters of apartheid, and their views are invalid and disruptive. Disrupting them is perfectly right and necessary.

And university administrations all too often cower before such forces. “Cower” may be the wrong word because it implies an unwilling surrender to superior forces. (Superior in strength, not wisdom.) All-too-often, unfortunately, the administrations agree with the actions of the masses. It's easy to attribute to inexperience and fearfulness, to the apprehension that faculty, students, and, most importantly, the press will view them as supporting unfashionable causes if they take a stand against mob censorship, so they either take no action against protesters or support them. The university is not a safe place for those who don't agree with majority opinion, even if that opinion is uninformed.

Home may be seen as dangerous, but the places to which many of our youth – and the teachers of the future – “escape” are far worse. Indeed, they are not safe spaces but the most dangerous to which they can go.

January 2, 2017