MORALITY POLICE  

Some of you may remember I told about the yeshiva boys who attacked us on Saturdays. Yes, we played games in the streets, punch ball, Johnny-on-the stoop, box ball, marbles and sometimes a version of football called “association,” bur who knew why. So, the yeshiva boys would pass our street corner and throw rocks at us. They were too wise not to invade our street because our section of Hewes Street was our home and they knew what they would get. This after all was Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

We kids thought we were lords of the universe, but, alas, Williamsburg has become a haven for the Haredi, the ultra orthodox, the sort of folk who wear old Latvian clothing . . . and their behavior has not changed; they have become the moral police. Let me preface with “police” carries insufficient meaning. Henceforth we’ll call them the moral thugs.

Imagine you are a shopkeeper with a family. You work hard and things are moving smoothly when a stranger approaches.

“Mr. Rabinowitz, we need to talk.”

“So, what about?”

“Your daughter, you need to do something about her.”

“My daughter,” said with consternation, “who are you, what's this about?”

“Who I am is not important; she needs to button the top of her blouse. She looks like a, you know what I mean.”

Rabinowitz scowls and starts a menacing look.

“Mr. Rabinowitz, you understand, there are vandals everywhere. We don't want your shop windows shattered, or who knows what else?”

Rabinowitz gets the idea and speaks with his wife and daughter and the top button is put into use.

No, the thug is not there to extort money; he is upholding the community's standards from which no deviation is acceptable.

In Israel, the same occurs except the moral thugs accost women if not dressed properly. They are insulted, spat upon and sometimes physically attacked. Even preteen children are not safe from their assaults. So, now we know about Jewish religionists, self -righteous and nasty. Still, they are not alone. Worse, are the Taliban and El Qaeda? When they take over an area, no woman is safe from beatings that sometimes draw blood and regardless of age.

Even when there are no beatings, women are required to cover up according to the local custom, often, except for their eyes; their whole body is swathed in black cloth.

We are much nicer in this country; such things don't typically happen but don't forget that the FCC has the power to shut down anything deemed immoral. On TV, police may beat their suspects for information without invoking charges of immorality, but hints of sexual misconduct draw a quick response. Imagine what would happen if The Police Commissioner in a popular show had a sexual friend on the side.

There is nothing wrong with intensely religious beliefs. Such people know the capital t Truth and live according to its precepts. They claim their lives are better and every now and then, I come across some research that suggests they are right. OK, they live the way they want and raise their children accordingly. But, some have a sense of outrage that others do not follow their customs and beliefs. Hence, they seek out malefactors and do bad things to them.

The kids who threw rocks at us had that sense of outrage. The ultra orthodox have that sense of outrage. The Taliban and their ilk have it. Islamists believe that the whole world must become Islamic and what happens to those who don't? Religious days must not be violated and women are eager to engage in improper sex. Because men have no capacity to resist women, the women must be controlled.

In Colorado, we are caught up in the argument over Civil Unions with the religious antis claiming that such would violate their religious freedom. They argue it is immoral would be destructive to our traditional notion of marriage. So, they are religious and outraged and thus wish to limit the civil rights of a certain class of our citizens. Please note that they never explain how their religious freedom is jeopardized nor do they explain how the institution of marriage would be impaired. Hell, it's no more than religious outrage.

But, I don't get why our legislature is not aiming for marriage.

Many citizens are alas, quite brain dumb

When they keep others from living in freedom

Just like the boll weevil

Civil marriage is quite evil

But to explain why is too tough a conundrum

January 28, 2013

WHAT'S WRONG WITH LOVE? CIVIL UNIONS  

Back in the very early days of my life, sexual relations between men and women seemed strictly bound by rules. It was not unusual for a couple to be engaged for several years; clearly, lust had no place in their relationship, (Anyway that was the assumption.) That a man and woman could live together without state sanction did not fit social mores; when it happened, everyone went ooh. Of course, we did not want to know the truth, that passion overrode civility, that men and women covertly enjoyed each others bodies. I had a great aunt who had lived with her married lover for decades and we kids stared at her as if she were from another planet. The adults felt sorry for her.

The same was true for homosexual love and passion, but even more so. The names for such people included fag, queen, gay, homo, et al and tell the story. Society had no use for such and its practitioners kept in the closet. For such proclivities to become public meant social and often financial disaster. The chances for such person to occupy public office simply did not exist. It was far worse than a divorced politician seeking election.

No one could come up with a coherent reason for such social absurdity. Explanations abounded, such as god did not approve, the bible did not approve, sex is for procreation homo sex is not, children might get the wrong idea about what's OK, gays in the military caused trouble and I'm sure many more. At least parental disapproval made a modicum of sense, i.e., no grandchildren.

So, now the world is changing. Homosexuals can win elections, they are OK in the military, public discrimination is illegal; we can see them approved of in some of our TV shows. But, God forbid they should marry or even have state recognized civil unions. The Colorado hoorah about such remains astonishing. Our state legislature is about to pass a civil union law making it permissible for two love birds to swear their loyalty to each other and have most of the perks of marriage. But, there are noisy people who demand that not happen because, now get this, it infringes on their religious freedom.

Infringes on their freedom? They do not assert that civil unions make it impossible for them to pray, or attend church, or marry by religious ceremony. They simply assert and are astonished we do not fall supine in obeisance to their wishes. Suppose religious Jews demanded that ham be removed from markets because its sale reduced their religious freedom. They would wind up accompanied by ambulance staff with nets to the nearest hospital.

Civilization is a mass of social doctrine, which people take seriously and are willing to kill about. Such social doctrine however serves to identify to which group we belong and make us feel comfortable with each other. Remember Henry Higgins of Pygmalion fame? He asserted that language kept us apart, but he missed that language keeps our reference group together. This country tried to force Native American children to give up their language, much to their anguish. Taking social convention seriously has lead to disasters.

It is likely that in Colorado, we will soon have civil unions, and I hope that down the road they will become marriages.

Whenever you wind up in bed

With the wrong someone, it is usually said

You have to carefully ration

Your sexual passion

Lest you wind up with a bonk on the head.

UNDERSTANDING WOMEN … MORE OR LESS 

The other day, while browsing I ran across something that truly astonished me. You know me well enough to know that such an occasion is quite rare; there is nothing much in the universe that has that WOW quality. But, that's what I said when I came across how science views menstruation.

When still a lad, I asked my mother about it and she gave me to understand, it had to do with readiness for conception and how the old eggs had to be flushed away. That was enough to keep me going and her wisdom was confirmed by what I learned and believed until I read that fascinating article.

First, the human female is the only one that menstruates. Our brethren, the great and lesser apes do not nor do lions and tigers and bears. The human, female animal is unique … and no one knows why. The explanations offered fall flat once the comparison with other animals is considered. If it is good for the human female, why is it not for the other animals? Conversely, if menstruating is not good for the others, why not for our lovelies?

For reasons unknown, obviously menstruation evolved for survival; perhaps someday evolution science will figure it out.

Women continue to be a puzzle. Freud famously said, “What do women want?” Eve was seduced by the snake and seduced Adam into sinning so it is said we stagger around in reality rather than live in our original home, tranquil Eden. Adam was happy where he was, but Eve talked him into sin and that fantasized pattern has persisted throughout history. But, we are in the midst of a great revolution, which struggles to give women their equal status in society. Hey, they are finally considered competent to kill alongside our men: but, variations of Freud's question persist. It is built into our social structure that men have to watch out because women will lead them astray. Religions preach this as capital t Truth.

Some argue there is no difference between men and women except for what biology has determined they will wear, a female or a male body. There are some, a bit loony I think, who argue that whether male or female, is a consequence of social determination, not biology. Yet, evolutionary science has slowly sorted out some important differences. Apparently, we and most all other animals would not have survived if men and women were designed for the same tasks. If everyone hunted or everyone tended the baby, it would take but a generation to eliminate us.

In general, females wound up as infant protectors and champions. Otherwise, the men might eat the helpless creatures; you know the rule, never get close to a mother and her cubs.

But, baby tending meant she would go hungry unless she had an accomplice in life, a man will to give her a portion of food so she and hence the infant could survive. So, unless women are in heat when they prefer a physically attractive male, they prefer one who can provide for her and the child. Man’s evolutionary role is to knock up as many women as possible and to accept responsibility for protecting his offspring. He will kill to protect his spawn and to keep his female from procreating with others. For men, life is thus simpler. Women have to be clever enough to find the right kind of man who will produce a child, support her and make sure he protects her and kid. Men just want to get laid; when the baby appears that urge is often thwarted. No wonder men don't trust women; they know every other male is out there trying to do the same thing and don't understand that women prefer monogamy.

Civilization provides a mechanism for sorting out and regularizing the family while permitting the gratification of both men and women. Alas, civilization is a shaky construct and the rules change over time. What confusion! And scientists have not yet figured out that core event in women's lives, their monthly obeisance to the moon. Perhaps, just perhaps science will finally get it and Freud answered.

Women are surely unique.

To understand them is like studying Greek

Their language seems plain

But here I maintain

You'd do better at hide and go seek.

BANG BANG, YOU'RE DEAD!

When I was a lad, we played cops and robbers or its variant, cowboys and Indians. We all had cap pistols, and slaughtered each other out of hand. No one wanted to be a robber or an Indian, but the game had to be played; somehow we figured out who was which. While it is true that I lived where Murder Incorporated hung out, we never were aware of its activities. None of our parents had guns that we knew of, but good guys and bad guys were always on our minds and guns were part of life.

Not much has changed. The Newtown killer's mom was a prepper, one of those anticipating some sort of apocalypse and prepared herself with weapons, in the process familiarizing her son with shooting and the general usefulness of guns. John Wayne and his ilk had some sort of ethic which always resulted in his shooting faster than the bad guys thus cleansing the world of evil. People have a holy need to kill animals for sport and there is the belief that a weapon in the home will protect against invaders, free lance or governmental. And for those of a more paranoid bent, the expectation of having to fight off the bad guys in the city streets requires they pack heat. I'm told that several Jewish men of the orthodox sort, carry weapons, I suppose because killer anti-Semites are everywhere. And now, people are buying guns, often more than one either anticipating anarchy or anticipating they might make a huge profit when the government decides to ban their sales.

What to do? As far as I can tell, unless Mr. Biden is particularly clever (the devil is in the details), the ideas tossed around will be almost useless. Yes, they will probably reduce the killings by moderately deranged killers who hate schools and children but do little to curb the more massive gun violence in our society. There is not a problem, there are two. What to do about the loner, his (Do women do this?) life filled with rage, who goes off and shoots in some kind of passion requires different solutions from the criminal who uses his weapon to commit crimes.

Banning assault weapons, and large magazines, restricting the sale of ammunition and mental health background checks will not, I repeat will not affect a criminal's use of guns. Yes, background checks would be useful so that known bad guys and bad girls are weeded out. But weapons are so easily acquired that such would not solve the problem. The solution I offer is Draconian, but considering the slaughter in out society, I propose that anyone who has ever provided a gun in a crime be equally prosecuted. “Your honor, my gun was stolen; I'm not responsible for how the thief used it.”

“Sorry, you should have kept it locked up.” Bartenders who give a drink to a drunk who crashes a car into someone can be prosecuted. Surely, we can do that with guns.

You all notice the hoorah raised by the NRA and gun lovers in our fifty states. Their passion is not fake, on the fringe they speak about killing people should there be an attempt to take their guns away. Yes, they usually have more than one. Whence this passion? I suggest that owning a weapon creates a sense of power much like we felt as children. We live in a society which purportedly infringes on our freedoms; there are too many rules, we cannot make choices without stumbling over some regulatory nonsense. People who express such concerns are persistently in fear of attack by criminals or the government and their solution is to get a gun.

Keep in mind that gun ownership is sacrosanct, that the second amendment guarantees that we are free to own whatever instrument of mayhem we choose without governmental permission. There are even some who walk around with their weapons in a holster, is that not flaunting power? I heard of some men who walked around with assault-type weapons; when the police came they said they wanted to show how peaceful they were. It is the thrust for power that drives the current madness. And, the way to beat bad- guy power is to make sure there is balancing good-guy power. Don't forget John Wayne ; killing the bad guys makes for peace.

I am really likely to cower

When facing one who demands personal power

Rooty toot toot

He might draw and me shoot

Unless when I draw he is slower.

THINKING ABOUT THINKING  

As is my wont, I lay in bed this morning thinking about what to eat for breakfast. Salad (with balsamic vinegar or sherry vinegar or cilantro, spicy vinegar), tuna salad, salmon salad, poached eggs, egg white omelet, a small steak, bacon and tomatoes, etc. I doubt if I have exhausted the possibilities. Nothing seemed interesting and then, not with an audible pop but surely close I knew I would poach two eggs and eat them atop the two halves of an English muffin, the eggs separated from the muffin halves by slices of black forest ham. I leaped out of bed with a glad song on my lips and thoroughly enjoyed the food accompanied by strong coffee, mixed with honey and almond flavoring.

You may have noticed that I did not decide; I only followed the system's instructions. By the “system” I mean the sum of my genetic inheritance, my general physical state and the totality of my life experience. All of me decided on breakfast, it only remained for what I call my mind to determine if I could fulfill the command. Eggs? Yes. English muffins? Yes. Black forest ham? Yes. Was there time? Yes. Was I too tired? No. Was it too caloric? No.

The system wants to get certain things and to avoid others. How can it get more money? Rob a bank, steal from a friend, knock someone down and run, get a job; I suppose the possibilities are legion. But, I evaluate whether such solutions are desirable. Having decided not, the system gets disgruntled and decides it wants candy, or in the old days, a drink, or an ear to cry into.

The system sometimes gives contradictory orders. Buy the Ferrari, but don't spend too much money. Obviously, both cannot be accomplished but sometimes I ponder selling my house. I don't and ultimately buy a much much cheaper car, but the system longs for the Ferrari. It demands consolation so I argue that Ferraris are way over priced and designed to satisfy the greed of the owners and the egos of the purchasers. The system mollified, I drive off in my Echo.

Humanity has pondered consciousness. Apparently, it proved we were different in kind from the beasts. Such rejection of our mammalian siblings could not withstand scrutiny. Observing them, we see ourselves writ small. It is clear that some animals are self-aware and their consciousness serves the same function: satisfy the system.

Consciousness (What we call our mind.) keeps us alive. It evaluates reality (as perceived at the time) and makes plans, all with the approval of the system. It could not have come into being over night but incrementally; the early bits of it kept some individuals alive; they reproduced and pretty soon (I mean millions of years) we became us.

Rather than being the lords of the earth, with free will guiding our daily lives, but we are merely servants of our systems. We cannot escape from our system because the system, it is us. Perhaps giving up the grandiosity will make it all palatable.

I've made some plans for the day; it will be interesting to see what my system will permit.

We are efficient, and well organized congregations

Of genes and life’s myriad of combinations

We boast we are clever

But, alas, it is rarely ever

We satisfy all system expectations

MORALITY: Why do we bother?

12/31/12

The whole issue stood Darwin on on his head. His theory, one of the most successful in science suggested that altruism should not exist. We should not be giving charity, boy/girl scouts should not be helping old ladies across the street, soldiers should not throw themselves on hand grenades to save their buddies . . . you get the idea. Evolution says we should be trying to spread our genes, yet we persist in the notion of marriage for life, surely a limitation on spreading our spawn. While evolution has succeeded in helping us understand much of biology it has failed to justify altruism.

Some economic theorizers postulate the “rational” man notion, persons always function in terms of their best interests and the devil with the rest. The epitome of such thinking is Ayn Rand's vision of government. In her system, the landscape would be littered with human detritus, society's failures. In spite of not understanding why evolution should make us so, we do not accept such draconian solutions to societal problems.

Religion, once the source of all knowledge (if it is not in the holy writings it isn't true) has gradually been forced to scale back; science has erased many of its ideas. This should be no surprise. After all, religious books reflect what seemed believable to nomads and tribes people but it is antiquated to speak of floods and celestial spheres, the earth's age of 6,000 years, souls, etc. Such wisdom has faded with our better understanding of how things work. But, religionists have one card with which they trump all others: Morality is impossible without god. Without a belief in god we would all be murderers, thieves, rapists, liars, etc. That we are generally not so becomes evidence for the existence of god. We don't act immorally because our faith forbids it. If you don't mind going in circles that might satisfy you.

It seems pompous to declare the beginning of a new age, but if current science is correct the tendency to morality is genetic. If you ever wondered why you don't take candy from babies, it is now likely that your genes won't let you. Ayn Rand and the others of that ilk, to the contrary not withstanding are wrong. Most of us are pre-disposed to feel bad when we act badly. What, after all, is guilt except the awareness of doing wrong. Fairness is apparently built in and we don't like it when we see others violating that rule.

Assuming that morality is built into our brains, what does that mean for religion? Obviously, they will lose their raison d'etre; they no longer can speak the Truth about reality unless catching up with science (The Vatican finally accepted the reality of evolution though postulated that god had set it all in motion. Also, after hundreds of years they admitted that Gallileo was right.). Truth becomes truth. And now, morality is no longer in their bailiwick, they cannot argue that it depends on belief in god and that belief in god depends on morality. Of course, they can argue that god set it all up, that he or she or it adjusted our genes to nudge us in the direction of goodness. Well, so much for free will, another religious fantasy.

Some might conclude that if it is all genes, we no longer have to think about our behavior, that our brains will automatically decide on the morality of a deed,. Sorry. Keep in mind that we need to learn out society's culture, IE its moral values. That we want to be moral may be a given, but we have to learn how. Cultures around the world vary in such details. There was, for instance, a group on some Pacific island that extolled the virtues of murder. Enough said. The thrust is there but the content varies.

And so, is it possible to conceive of a universal morality, I mean one in which all societies agree so that murder is murder everywhere and rape and thievery and meanness are looked upon with the same distress around the world. Why not; our genes will cooperate. Religions have declared themselves to provide universal values and often does so by torture and killing unbelievers and apostates. No thanks!

Western civilization has begun to eschew religion. Perhaps if only out of sheer exhaustion we'll be left with some general sense of how humanity might get along.

People have struggled to figure out the causality

Of what is generally understood as morality

Some tried religion

But that led to division

It's all in our genes, that seems the reality.

QUARTERING TROOPS AND THE 2^nd AMENDMENT: UP TO DATE STUFF.

12-17-12  BLOG

Many years ago, when young enough not to know better I was impressed by a politician who said something like “The constitution is the most perfect document in the world.” My reaction was in the line of, “Wow!”

Well, the aging process has changed my cynicism quotient from 1:1000 to 1000:1; that naive youngster was happy with such certitudes while the oldster that I have become does a bit of sneering. Let's face it, in spite of its wonderful work, our constitution is getting a bit creaky. I mean, back in the good olde days when King George number three was in charge, he had the habit of quartering British troops in civilian homes. I don't know whether it was in order to remind the locals of the majesty of British rule or because he was too cheap to build barracks for them.

Whatever his purpose, time has put quietus to that idea I don't think American revolutionary troops were ever quartered in civilian homes and the constitution has a clearly stated ban against such practice. Clearly, it is an archaic practice. With a standing army quartered in private homes, you'd have young soldiers roaming the streets causing general mayhem among the citizens. Not only for training reasons, but barracks and camps have to be built to protect society from testosterone laden young men. Clearly, the prohibition had meaning only for that specific time, but now clearly past.

If you haven't yet gotten my drift, the same is true about the second amendment, the one that gives anyone the right to own any weapons in the name of fighting tyranny, self-protection and the sheer fun of shooting animals. Oh yes, there are some limitations having to do with the mental status of purchasers or their past history but those only apply if you try to buy a gun in a shop. At gun shows there are no such impediments to owning as many as you can afford and certainly, private sales are outside the pale. In essence, anyone with perhaps only a bit of hassle can get a weapon … whoops, I mean weapons.

What were those paragons of political wisdom, George, Tom, John, Ben, et al, thinking? How come they stuck the opaquely written second into the law of our land? If we accept they were not maniacs who cheerfully anticipated the proliferation of public slaughter we can try to understand what they were trying.

In the days after the revolution, there was general hostility to having a standing army. Armies served tyrants; we had had too much of that. The colonies, not well protected by the British army developed militias. They did not form, except for desultory practice in drill, until some hostility was upon them; at the call, male citizens were expected to grab their rifles and meet in the town square with the anticipation of fighting off marauding Indians. (You know, the people who were pissed at us for stealing their land.) I don't know if they served the purpose, but that was the best the colonies could provide. During the revolutionary war, the militia was useful for shooting from behind trees but could not stand up to trained British regulars. I mean, we had to have an army trained to stand in line, stand firm in the face of the British volley and fire back.

Pretty soon, states in cooperation with the feds developed the National Guard. They serve as a ready reserve for the feds and to maintain order during public disasters. You know, after a tornado, call out the guard. No one calls out the militia.

In truth, the concept of a militia is as dead as the dodo, the dinosaurs and spats. But, having said that, there is the second amendment, written at a time when muzzleloaders were the best available. If you wanted to kill, say 20 children and 6 adults you'd have to load twenty-eight times. Of course, this was impractical because there would be plenty of time for the potential victims to jump on you and kick your ass . . . many times over. In these days of semi-automatic weapons the killing task, as we have learned over and over is rather simple. Still, after emptying his weapon, the killer would have to reload, that's when he was most vulnerable and could be taken down. If he had a thirty cartridge drum before reloading, that means lots of dead people.

The NRA wants more guns in the population as a method of gun violence control and armed guards in our schools. I wonder how many would be victims of road rage. Well, if you have your own weapon and a vest you could shoot it out with the nut with a gun. And, all a school shooter needs is his bulletproof vest . . .  so much for the capacity to shoot back. The NRA hero is John Wayne, but you'd have to be better at the draw or you get drilled.

We ought to accept that the second is as antiquated as quartering troops in civilian homes, no longer meaningful in modern society. Alas, our constitution has become more a sacred writing than a legal compact and the second will be with us for next fifty years or so. In the meantime, let's ban civilianized assault weapons, magazines that hold more than five bullets and require that all purchasers be vetted to weed out the undesirables.

There are many who think it a hoot.

To whip out their side arm and shoot.

Some foolishly think freedom brings

The need to put up with such things

Number two? Let's just give it the boot.