Questions and Observations: Something to Offend Everyone

1. It strikes me that the people who believe that gender roles are largely culturally determined are pretty much the same people who are most likely to be sympathetic to the transgendered--those who are outwardly one sex but inwardly feel themselves to be the other sex, and who have the personality and innate preferences of that other sex. I don't really know what is correct or that these two notions can't ultimately be reconciled, but they do at least seem to be contradictory. And no one much notices.


2. It feels right that someone ought to be able to start an honest business with little interference and charge what she wants for her goods or services and that she ought to be able to profit or not depending on her work skills and business acumen. And further, it feels right that she should be able to hire workers for what they are worth to her or sell shares or take out loans to raise money for expansion. And beyond that, those persons holding those shares or loans ought to able to exchange those shares or loans for other things of value. All of this seems sensible and feels right.

But when the elaboration of this process results in some people making many, many, many multiples of what some others make doing full-time, legitimate work, to me, it feels wrong. And I have no problem with the idea of society rebalancing outcomes to some degree. But if it happens that all attempts to do this make the above-described economic system unworkable, and if any other system is too unproductive or requires unacceptable coercion, then we may have to accept wildly inequitable outcomes. But we should not celebrate the morality of massive inequality nor cease looking for workable methods of redress.

While a just society may reluctantly decide that war is necessary in some circumstances, the celebration of the war's attendant slaughter is a mark of that society's barbarity.

Questions and Observations: Something to Offend Everyone

1. A question for those who want no measures strong enough to actually stop illegal immigrants from coming across the southern border and no serious attempts to make them leave once they're here: If you want a completely open border, please say so. And also, do you want to stop screening people who want to come here from places other than Latin America? If not, why not? You don't like Romanians or Nepalese? And there are Iraqis, who, having served us as translators, are trying to come here for their own safety. And they are mired in months and years of red tape.
So hey, if you think people should be able to move freely around the globe and settle anywhere they want without restriction, let's talk. Certainly the nation-state with controlled, well-defined borders has caused a lot of mischief in the world.

2. I heard a discussion today of a report by, I think, the Pew Research Center, that talked about "unauthorized" immigrants rather than "undocumented" or "illegal" immigrants. An effort to find a term that UnAmerican one-worlders and hateful nativist bigots can agree on?


3. Do you think the Arizona legislature should pass a resolution encouraging the President and Congress to maintain the weakness of the economy, since that's been our most effective tool in slowing illegal immigration?

Language Crank

Turning nouns into verbs is an often useful practice that has a long and honorable history in English. For example, a few decades ago we made "parent" into "to parent," and that has worked well. For women, the word has a different emphasis than "to mother." And for men, "to father" has a completely different meaning. But I can't see any reason to make "reference" into "to reference" when we already have "to refer to," except to annoy those of us whom it strikes as incorrect. Perhaps the usage has an academic or bureaucratic origin, because I don't hear it from the uneducated rabble, but mostly from radio and tv commentators and their newsmaking interviewees. In a phrase such as "...the law she______earlier in her remarks...," they feel compelled to insert "referenced" rather than "spoke about," "mentioned," "explained," "expounded upon," "alluded to," or other possibilities that might give more precision and linguistic variety to their commentaries.

Questions and Observations: Something to Offend Everyone

1. I remember reading Herodotus and histories of the Byzantine Empire and thinking that whatever the manifold horrors of the modern world, there really are some barbarities we've left behind--like, you know, cutting off noses and ears.

                                             


2. It puzzles me how people who believe in a God more petty and vindictive than we would find admirable or even tolerable in a mere mortal can insist so strenuously on the loving goodness of that deity. Similarly, how come the people who say,"God is so good," whenever you tell them about something swell that's happened to you, don't also say, "God is so nasty." when you tell them about something not so swell? Been reading too much Aquinas, maybe.


3. I guess that building a Muslim community center two blocks from the site of the twin towers is offensive in the sense that a lot of people are offended by it. And perhaps that's enough--at some point going ahead with something one has the right to do isn't worth it if you get too many people foaming-at-the-mouth-angry about it. And I suppose that on the odd chance that it really is a secret plan to plop a mosque down on the site of a glorious triumph of Islam over the infidels, I'm offended too. But you know, this plan was public for months without anyone being very much exercised about it until we began to be told that we should be up in arms about a "Ground Zero mosque."

A Poem for My Annual Day of Pantheism

God, who is eyeless,
sees through me.
God, who is wingless,
flies through thee,
great heron skimming the water.

Questions and Observations: Something to Offend Everyone

1. A court decision today pretty much prevented the use of federal funding for any embryonic stem cell research, contrary to one of Obama's first executive orders. This includes cells from already-dead embryos. As policy, I don't like this. But I don't have an opinion about the correctness of the judge's decision, not knowing enough about the particulars of the law in question or the reasoning behind the decision. Ever notice how closely people's reactions to court decisions, especially Supreme Court decisions, follow their politics? Face it, folks, the constitution doesn't mandate everything you love and proscribe everything you hate.


2. Do you really want to keep a gay guy's partner of 30 years from getting social security death benefits? Really? On the other hand, Do we really want to regard those two guys as just an incidentally infertile couple?


3. If you think that abortion should be illegal except in the case of incest or rape, you can't at the same time believe that an embryo is a human person like the rest of us out in the world. Try this as a thought experiment: You are a monster if you kill your four year old because she causes you too much stress--unless the stress results from her father being also her grandfather. In that case, go ahead and drown her and chuck her in the dumpster.
If the outcome is horrible and the reasoning is logical, then the premises are horrible as well. Not that it's personally a problem for me, given that I don't hold with the premises in the first place.


4. You think you have not an iota of racism? that your believing that Obama is a Muslim Nazi has nothing to do with his being black, or Halfrican-American or whatever? Think of this: If you're white, how many black people live in the neighborhood you most recently moved from and how many live in the neighborhood you live in now? My guess is that how much more vitriolic and unreasonable the hatred of Obama is than the already unreasonable and vitriolic hatred of Bill Clinton was is a pretty good measure of the proportion of racism in the mix.

A Schopenhauer Variation

The oscillation between the unpleasant and the insufficiently anodyne.