A Note on Method

My versions of the Chinese and Japanese poems appearing here have been produced by reading two or more commentaries or literal translations of each poem. I've used literary translations as well, but I prefer not to. Oh, and I like having romanizations too, so I can have more sense of the original prosody. But I don't really know Chinese or Japanese at all, beyond a few words. And characters are wholly opaque to me.

Anyway, I really appreciate comments, but I can't read Chinese. If it's in pinyin, I might make out a very simple sentence or two. Like, "Nide shi bu hao," I'd get that.

Dueling Abortion Ads: Both Wrong

The Tim Tebow bit most people have seen or heard about. The other one is a response from Planned Parenthood available only on the web.

Tebow first. It's great that his mom's decision turned out well and he's healthy and happy. But almost certainly some women have gotten similar advice, rejected it, and had a horrible outcome--assuming that you don't already believe that having had an abortion is in itself a horrible outcome. Also, the story gets much of its emotional punch from seeing Tim's embryo as actually being Tim, rather than, say, a self-actualizing recipe for Tim. What if the mom's story was, "I had a really bad headache that night, but..." So what's your favorite link in the chain of causation?

So now for the Planned Parenthood ad. It's just off the point. The ad has two guys saying that they have young daughters and that they hope that the girls grow up to be women who are able to choose what they want to do with their own bodies. But you can't get to where you are asking whether a woman should have choice in the matter or not until you establish that a embryo or fetus isn't essentially the same as a post-natal human. As a thought experiment, let's say we're in an alternate universe in which a neighbor of a woman having sex may occasionally end up magically miniaturized and in suspended animation inside that woman's womb. Do you think that you'd want your daughter to grow up to have the choice of aborting your drinking buddy, Fred, from next door? Nope, so first you have to establish that an unborn baby is a different sort of thing from Fred. But it's not all or nothing. If you can establish that the unborn baby is different, then you can argue whether a woman's control over her body should extend to aborting it.

By the way, I'm quite aware that a good deal of anti-abortion/pro-life talk has a considerable odor of misogyny about it. But that says more about the people who are talking than about the logic of what they are saying.

Books and Cigars

On the radio several years ago I heard a story about cigar makers in Florida. This was several decades ago, I think. Anyway, while they worked, there was someone who read books to them all day, classics, all kinds of stuff. Can't remember how this happened, whether their union paid for it or extracted it as a benefit from their employer. Or maybe the company did it on its own as a morale booster. Now that's my kind of job--minus the carcinogenic aspects. Maybe the job itself wasn't very satisfying, but it was it was quiet enough to allow for that big literary bonus.

Another reason I find this especially interesting is that my great grandfather was a cigar maker here in Toledo, Ohio. Although he died in the thirties, ten years or more before I was born, I imagine I would have heard if he had had this unusual perk with his job. Just think of how his progeny might have have benefitted if he had spent all his working life being read to. And think of how much better educated we would be if this were the accompaniment to every job that would accommodate it.

My ideal job--the reader, of course. ...The Tale of Genji...Janet Evanovitch...Moby Dick...Charles Bukowski...Nagarjuna...Douglas Hofstadter...

On Scott Roeder

Yeah, Scott Roeder is a dangerous nut. But not because he passed from peaceful protest and legitimate political dissent into murderous violence. If you believe what he apparently believes, that an embryo is ensouled at the moment of conception and thus has the same status as the moral actors out in the world, then violence against abortionists may be ethically allowed or even necessary. Unless you are a complete pacifist, if you see one class of people being killed at the whim of others, wouldn't you feel justified in using force to protect them? Even if it's against the law? Even if the law is democratically enacted? So no, Scott Roeder is a dangerous nut not because he is violent per se, but because he has looney beliefs that, once held, lead quite logically to violence in the present circumstances.

We should be grateful that the tens of millions who think they believe what Scott Roeder believes do not believe so wholeheartedly, so completely without a scintilla of rational doubt, that they too follow those beliefs to where they so clearly beckon.

One more thought. In his testimony, Mr. Roeder stated that he has been very much exercised by the issue of abortion ever since he became a Christian in, I think, 1992. My guess is that he wasn't an atheist or a Muslim before 1992. Most probably, he was something like an indifferent Methodist or Presbyterian. I might be wrong about Mr. Roeder, but this is the larger point: In recent years, those in the fundamentalist/evangelical camp have begun to refer to themselves as Christians in a way that at least implicitly excludes other Christians. I find their arrogation of the term to themselves alone offensive, though I am not a Christian myself. Tell me you haven't heard a conversation like this: "Hey, I really like that new orientee. I think she'll do a great job." "Yes, me too. And she's a Christian, you know." You can be sure that "Christian" here does not include, say, "Catholic" or "Lutheran."

The Tortures of the Damned

Those who have persecuted others for the purpose of protecting God--Whom they believe to be omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect in all others ways as well--from the pain of being insulted or misunderstood will be consigned to a hell soundless but for scornful laughter.

What is marriage for? The answer to this question should determine what we think about same-sex marriage. If marriage is for legally recognizing life partners and giving them a suite of benefits, then we are discriminating against same-sex couples by not allowing them access to this institution. They are clearly capable of the same affections and the same aspirations for their lives together as heterosexual couples.

If, on the other hand, marriage is for encouraging people who make children together to be coupled and to stay coupled to raise those children, then in this respect there is a clear and meaningful difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. And therefore nondiscrimination should not be required either legally or morally.

Does this seem to you a reasonable approach to the problem?

In the Mountains

White stones stick up from Bramble Brook.
Red leaves sparse against a cold sky.
No rain now on the mountain path.
My clothes wet from the high green brush.
--Wang Wei