Smarter Than Thou!

FIGHTERS WITHOUT A CAUSE?

           I am a believer of George Orwell. He held that the language used by a culture could be a powerful force in determining what we accept as real. The key word here is real. We do not choose what is real. Reality imposes itself upon us, like the weather. Language can determine what we consider unquestionably real, and necessary.

           If something is said often enough, an absurdity can be accepted as valid. I offer the following example. A barb is a hook that has two points, each facing in opposite directions, as with a fishing hook. So-called “barbed wire” has only one point. Barbed wire is intended to divert animals. A barbed hook is intended to capture and to retain. Clearly, barbed wire is not barbed. Yet we continue to mis-refer to it as such. Similarly “reproductive rights” refer to the killing of an already reproduced child. That is the right to reproduce now refers to ending reproduction. Opposites can become synonyms.

            Some of this may be because we often accept euphemism rather than precision, and/or effective advertising rather than truth. Perhaps this common defect makes the current generations into fools. At the least it probably helps.

            Another Memorial Day passed with the standard clichés. The news people announced their gratitude to the brave men who died to “protect our rights.” Frequently such pronouncements were linked with the current military efforts in Mid East. That is, the military actions, past and present, were presented as preserving, from attack, basic American values.

            Often this link is specified as the First Amendment. Freedom of speech, religion, etc, are assumed (somehow) to be under attack from the terrorist organizations. How any rational person can see any such connection is beyond me. The United States could lose every conflict in the Mid-East, and all of us could still, legally, go to the churches of our choice. The continued publication of newspapers is not a function of killing terrorist activists.

            I offer that this silly tendency is due to the following fact. The administrations that have supported these wars fear---probably justly---that they can not make convincing justifications to the public for the costs and goals. It does not sound “American” that US soldiers die in order to keep oil resources in friendly hands, and/or set up a regional balance of power. Personally, I hold that this is enough of a reason. For at least the foreseeable future, oil IS blood for modern civilized nations. And those who have it also have a consequent moral obligation to make it available to others. To feed the hungry is a moral obligation. This feeding (and everything else), these days, depends upon oil.

            Should the governments involved simply tell the truth? Or are the administrations correct in their assumptions regarding the general lack of intelligence of the public? The second is probably true. After all they still call pointed wire barbed.

INDIANA TO THE (POTENTIAL) RESCUE

            AMERICA, it seems to me, has a racial problem. And, I predict, it will never be resolved. This is because the nation’s value system both supports and denounces the same approaches. As I use the word “racism” let me give my definition. It means to treat a person differently simply because of his race. This does not necessarily mean to treat a person badly. Affirmative action, when a government decree, mandates that Black people be favored over Whites, simply because of their race. This is a form of beneficial racism.

   Affirmative action is based upon racial assumptions. The Black guy needs extra help, or an unearned advantage, because some part of being black has made him handicapped. Similar to the handicapped parking spots, we, as a culture, give this guy something extra. For my purposes it does not matter if these perceived, official, disadvantages are real, imagined or simply fabricated. The official ideology is Black equals defective and equality can be achieved only by changing the objective standards.

   That is, in some areas the Black has problems. In other areas Whites are considered automatically unethical, that is inferior. Courts have decreed, and Liberals hold as dogmatic, that juries of only White people can not properly judge Black defendants. No matter what oaths these people take, their inherent prejudices, something inseparable from skin shade, makes them incapable of being honest or fair. And, somehow, adding a few Black people, manages to restore the jury system so that it can function justly.

   In case you have not noticed these official positions of our nation mean that, essentially, everyone is inherently incapable of doing the right thing, unless the government forces them.

   Recently a White upper class college student (at Stanford) was convicted of a sexual crime and given a few months in jail. A Liberal radio personality was asked to comment on another case, in light of this one. The second case involved a similar crime and the defendant (a Black) was sentenced to over two decades in prison! The Liberal, reflexively, responded that this was a case of “pure racism.” She offered no proof or argument. I suspect that, somehow, if the White criminal had been given the same sentence then this would have the longer sentence non racist. It seems that justice has no place in these things. Or, if it does, I can not find where it is.

    I mentioned this only because of the following. For decades, and presently, the USA has been repeatedly told that the justice system is inherently racist. This means that the people in it must be. And yet when Donald Trump accused a judge of being racist, the Liberals nearly went berserk. Their sole defense was that the judge was “born in Indiana.” I withdraw my prediction. All racism can be removed from the system by having only judges who were born in Indiana. Clearly something in the water there prevents racial prejudice.

NOTHING CAN BE DONE

   WHEN I was younger, long before I attempted to write something like this, I felt that one way to do this would be to identify isolated mistakes. This might allow some opportunity for satire. I rejected this approach as being “too easy.” Which one of us is incapable of finding errors in others? However, regardless of what I pray in the “our Father,” I have been led into temptation, and I am comfortable there. So I shall point out where almost(?) everyone else is wrong.

   In the very good movie “The French Connection” three officers are assigned to watch a major criminal. Two of them watch the front door of his home, while the third (Doyle) went off to get some coffee. As Doyle returns he sees that the criminal is leaving. And the other two did not notice, as they were talking to, and facing, each other. That is, they, for only a moment, looked away from the door. Doyle needs to make a decision. He can attempt to alert his colleagues, or he can follow the criminal, alone. Either choice is bad. Calling to his partners may call attention to himself, and take time, and he may then lose sight of the target. Should he follow the criminal, alone, he will probably be noticed and identified. This is what he chooses, and this is what happens. And the criminal mocks him, as he gets on a subway car, alone.

   The movie has an element of realism, showing how easily a surveillance can fail. It also, as movies are, is unreal. The criminal lives in an apartment building. Has it no backdoor? In the movie, obviously, the building has only one door. This is artistic license. In reality many police officers would be needed to see him if and when he leaves? A “tail” to be effective then requires at least 8 officers! And this would require that they, every moment, do not look away. But humans do, and they cough, look away, go to the rest room, fall asleep, get distracted, etc.

   In most movies, somehow, one police officer manages to follow one criminal, successfully. They are not hindered by traffic, or traffic lights, etc, when trailing the criminal’s vehicle. I understand the demands of the cinema. I do not object to its unreality. However I DO object to its affect on the collective (lack of) intelligence in Americans. Too many of us think that the movies show how law enforcement can be done.

   I refer to the recent mass shooting in Orlando. The Mass Media gave the impression that the shooter was “known” to authorities, as a danger. So why did they not “do something?” Such as? Was he to be followed? 24 hours a day? How many agents could be assigned to this, without neglecting other cases? And if a whole lot of officers were assigned, were they to follow the shooter everywhere, every time? How closely could they stay near him at a restaurant, or a concert, or a movie? Does anyone really expect that they could have been a few feet away before he started shooting? If officers were so close then he would not shoot. But, except in movies, there are not enough officers in all the departments in the nation to provide such pro-active activity. And such a close proximity would be noticed.

   Keep in mind that he legally possessed his guns. Keep in mind that he could not be arrested until AFTER he committed a crime. The simple question is this: what could have been done, legally and practically, to prevent the deaths? The simple answer is: nothing. And this can not be changed.

BREAD FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

    Victor Hugo, in his famous book, Les Miserables, went to an extreme to make a point. Hugo was more than a novelist; he was a “reformer” who used his works to oppose certain positions, such as capital punishment. In his novel the main character is sent punished---by becoming a galley slave!---for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. This is meant to be shocking, maybe even ridiculous. And it is, both.

   I hold it as true that no rational human would condemn anyone who “stole” bread because it was the only way to feed himself or his family. Let me expand on this. I hold also that we would condemn anyone who refused to give a loaf of bread to a starving man, if such were readily possible. So this “thief” should have been the object of charity and not being whipped in the galleys. Stay with me, as from this obvious foundation I intend to prove an unpopular conclusion.

   Let me, metaphorically, identify the necessary “bread” of today. We current humans need a lot more to survive than those in Hugo’s works. They survived (but maybe not for a long time) without antibiotics, dental care, central heating, indoor plumbing, modern transportation and communication, etc. We have become dependent upon advanced technology. How many of us would survive---and for how long?---without electricity and a ready source of water? Our “bread” comes in many forms. Yet there is one element in almost---if not all---of these forms that is necessary.

   Let me approach its identity indirectly. Let me present a hypothetical scenario of the Old West. A girl is bitten by a rattlesnake. Her father learns that the doctor, who can treat her, is in another town. He seeks to borrow, or to rent, a horse, to ride to that town and bring back the doctor. The man who owns the fastest horse simply refuses to loan it. No other horse would be able to travel there in time. So it is either this ride this one horse or the girl dies. I assume that all of us who not only approve of any “borrowing” (even if not permitted), but also we would see it as an obligation. This would be so even if the father needed to “steal” the horse, and fight the owner to do so. Imagine if that snake bit many people.   The just cause would be more just (if possible).

   Let me vary this a little. Suppose that the father has only $10 and the horse owner demands a $25 rental fee.   We still agree that he should act, perhaps paying what he can. Once again the villain is the legal horse owner. He is morally obligated to lend/rent the horse (and to help his fellow man). And if he will not cooperate then we approve of alternative action, even if it involved violence.

   In our time our daughters can not survive without oil. Rather then list the thousands of ways that oil, and derived products, support our lives, I shall simply declare it to be so. Its absolute necessity is obvious upon any brief analysis. Without the free flow of oil our country---and our daughters---will die. Period. And this is one reason why at least some of the military actions in the Mid East were justified.

   Yes, some blood is being shed for oil. That is, some die so that the rest of us may live.