Wild Hair #4: Names Honoring…

“JFD Jr.” That name honors my dad (deceased). Drop the “Jr.” and substitute “II” just to distinguish where I am in the line. How do/can I honor my mother (deceased)? In my name. I seldom knew her as “Helen”. Just “Mom.” Why not JFHD?

I am regretful. No, that’s not enough: ashamed, sorrowful. I wasn’t attentive. I wish a teacher of history  — grade school, jr. hi., high school, at some time and several times over the course of my elementary and secondary education — had required me to to pick the brains of my family and relatives and write a family history and then have me talk to the class about it,  as a lesson in historiography, family origins, writing, family communication, and “public speaking”. What a wonderful way to teach history! And many other things.

Operational Definition

God is the invention of people in trouble, having been in trouble, or about to be in trouble.

Jealousy is envious anger.

Dignity is having choices.

(Before I go further, let me explain. The bedrock of my character is sedimentary, the silt of concepts developed over the years of study, thinking, and teaching, and now coming out in what has been called “the universal phenomenon of reminiscence in later life” [from the summary of the research reported in the abstract I have placed in the articles section of this blog].

(So, continue with the concepts.)

Attention is selective response.

Concentratiuon is prolonged attention.

Reasoning is symbolic balancing of alternatives.

Science is a method of reasoning, empirically or experimentally.

Romance is art. Marriage is science.

Motivation is energized behavior.

Genius is nothing but monstrous energy. (To wit: The German empiricists.)

Thought fills the delay between stimulus and response.

Thought is that internal monologue that inhibits response.

Theory is a statement that attempts to account for all known facts in a field of inquiry.

[The theory of evolution is not a speculation.]

Perception is a response involving memory and sensation.

Character is what you do at home, alone, and in the dark.

Character is forged in the metallurgy of choice.

Eloquence is the marriage of heart and brain.

Presidential candidate #1: passion minus poise. #2: poise minus passion. Eloquence equals poise plus passion.

Culture is shared codes, a matrix of demographics and communication codes.

Political correctness is cultural astuteness. (PC is the attempt to show in public policy a sensitivity for culture.)

Art is the final tuft and essence of science.

Life is irritable matter.

Time is elastic.

Teaching is a process of diagnosis, awareness, experiences, critical feedback, testing.

Justice is due process.

Intelligent use requires prudence, circumspection, sensitivity, bibliotherapy.

Habit is response without awareness, the silent valet.

Learning is changing habits, substituting new for old.

Learning is painful; if an experience hurts, there is an opportunity to learn.

Conscience is the sense of an ideal self.

Law is an expression of social conscience.

Honesty is a method, not a trait, and can be avoided where a trait cannot.

Courage is enduring discomfort with fortitude.

Courage is a marker of maturity.

Maturity imagines the discomfort of others.

[Hemingway: "Courage is grace under pressure."]

Ego disengagement means generosity, trust, self-criticism, rejection of self-interest.

Morality is that which has survival value.

Morality is acting as I would legislate for the whole world.

Capitalism, by its acquisitive nature, is a conservative philosophy.

Democracy is a liberal philosophy.

Democracy is discussion, and debate if discussion breaks down.

Alternatives to democracy are anarchy or dictatorship.

All organizations are hierarchical.

Hierarchical organizations cannot be democratic.

Democracy captured by an arisocratic “establishment” becomes a “system” that pays lip service to democracy.

Adaptability precludes adaptation, and vice versa.

Alternative forms of suicide are divorce, drugs, abandonment, infidelity, lying, cheating, alcohol, gluttony, and so on.

Listening is accurate paraphrase of what is being said.

Active listening is repeating what was said to the satisfaction of the speaker.

Demagoguery is saying what the people want to hear.

Arbitrariness is the wish and power of one ego over all the rest (and to be fought in all pursuits).

Death is mainly ego-obliteration. What others may retain of the departed ego is not the ego obliterated.

Frankness is the art of getting the truth across unmistakebly, without brutality.

One’s maturity and mental health is the extent to which intelligence rules passion, habit, and, yes, reason. Look out for the infantile personality

Probing questions, beyond the first two or three, take you down the path of the other person’s point of view to walk a mile in the other’s shoes. (The test for all journalists.)

Hindsight knows everything. Foresight knows nothing. Judgment is prudent. Prejudgment is reckless.

A journalist is a conduit.

The largest errors of our time: making immediate decisions without regard for long-term consequences.

The seven stages of life: inheritance; presence; competence; ascendance; eminence; impermanence; imminence. (But only in a democracy.)

Earth’s orbit is the Goldilocks orbit.

Silence is consent.

Encomium to WordPress

 

“Best Blogging Service: WordPress”, Computer Shopper (Nov., 2006) p. 76. So I signed up. What a great tool.

Free — Whe-e-e-e!  I tried another earlier. Nah.  But WordPress, easy to use. Only a few small problems getting started, with the jargon. I do not understand the use of RSS, and a few other things, but I am amazed at the utility of this service. Computer Shopper was right.

Only one huge problem. This is addictive, this blogging. Sucks up a lot of time that I want to use elsewhere. And the stats show little interest in what I have to say. That’s what it’s about, isn’t it? It’s addictive because it’s a form of narcissism. I wrote an invited poem once for what turned out to be the vanity press, which was nothing more than a big industry for selling books. Is vanity something vain, empty or valueless, exaggerated self-love, inflated pride? Perhaps not.

There may be some of that, but in a democracy all people feel empowered through the internet to be heard on the issues. That is my urge to blog. Given the huge variety of human life, as varied as the shapes of life, the issues are as varied, global to petty, tragic to laughable, broad to narrow, brainy to idiotic, ancient to current, now and to the end of the universe, and the angles of vision are unimaginably complex. Tolerance, acceptance on the part of any one node is expected.

But I have a little discrimination. Language is certainly becoming diluted and losing meaning. For myself, I hope for better, not “worse” writing. Writing that will survive, rising above that complexity of expression to reach potentially larger audiences. Writing seems to have become quick, easy, and scatological, bother the rules. Speed and informality is prized. The old (classic, standard) rules, if followed, will take the message further abroad to wider audiences. The more obscure forms will survive only in little eddies that spin off from the mainstream into tiny pools that will dry up and become extinct. Clannish. Tribal. “With it”! Mature people have fossilized at the 10^th grade level, it seems. Distant from the general, turbid, vibrant roar. If the writer’s opinion is valued by the writer, then a more standard diction needs to be a competency. English is becoming a lingua franca, a common currency. All who use the www should train up to it to package the message so anyone could understand it, and understand that any grossly deviant “mistakes” can make others roll their eyes and dismiss the writer.

Mr. Romney, Republican Presidential Candidate

The most telling statement he has made in running away from his previous positions, which should be a WARNING:  His presidency will be faith-driven.  Our home-grown theocrat! “Da Base” will love it.  Bush will be resurrected.

Society’s I.Q.

Can a group or nations have an I.Q.?

I am sure there are many markers, taken as a whole, that will reflect on how smart or stupid Americans are as they are perceived by out-groups.

Can an average reading ability of the society be calculated? How dumb or smart are we? Is the political competence of our elected office-holders a quotient of our intelligence? They are certainly a projective test of our voting public. Newspapers calibrate the level of difficulty in the language they print. I think they aim it at a sixth-grade level using the Flesch reading score. Does that yield a social I.Q.? What is our society’s readiness for exposure to complicated and difficult issues? How likely are people in our society to override what they read or hear with prejudgment? Do people in our society have the ability to remember arguments and evidence contrary to their beliefs or bias?

Can the type of tv programs and movies (Dumb and Dumber) that become popular or unpopular, as judged by box-office receipts or viewer ratings compared to the judgment of critics, provide an index of the functional intelligence of our society? Will those against certain candidates listen to that candidate speak?Is there an intelligence difference between the groups who elect or oppose a given candidate? The candidate as a projective test. Can appeals (political, commercial, PSAs) to intellgence be distinguished from appeals to emotion or prejudice? Are there intellectual and non-intellectual candidates and voters? Does intelligence predict competence? I am thinking here of “da base” having a retarding influence on the progression of our society to select more competent leaders and the production of more deliberative minds, more citizens than mere voters. Anti-intellectualism in America has had some effect on our elections. What is the common denominator of political competence? I welcome help here.

How much is intelligence a factor for the voter? What are the markers of intelligence in a candidate? What are the markers of a lack of intelligence? How do elected candidates reflect the voters’ intelligence?

A Great Simile

I enjoy great similes, analogies, metaphors.

“… I can’t blame Hollywood for the coarsening of our culture and our children. Hollywood and HBO are clueless. It is like trying to explain that it is bad manners to chew with your mouth open to a packof hyenas.” (Baxter Black, “Dear Hollywood”, in Granby, CO: Sky-Hi News/Daily Tribune, Feb. 1, 2007, p. 8.)

Kerry Had It Right: Set a Date!

The thinking that we should not set a date for withdrawal is probably wrong. Sen. John  Kerry believes that setting a date will put the pressure on, nay, force the Iraqi leadership to compromise among the major factions on the hard choices. A deadline.  A finish line. It ends here. A goal line. Just get it done. It’s your wedding date. Your birthday. We’ve had the fun of conception. It’s the time for the birth pangs. Push! Push! Push!  We all work toward deadlines, schedules, well defined objectives, final exams, graduation day. Kick off. Final gun. It’s our culture. Is that culture over there not ruled by time constraints? The regular paycheck? A time to shop? Shops open. Shops close. A holiday, on schedule.

When I taught classes, I would have a series of behavioral objectives, by which any observer could plainly see whether the learner had met the objective or not. I just had to define and communicate them clearly in advance of the learning experiences. There were behavioral tests of accomplishment. The Iraqi “clasroom” seems to be absent any of that. Benchmarks. Roadmaps. Milestones. Rather, behavioral objectives. What are the specific, observable behaviors that would indicate progress in governance skills, and which are announced to the world? By the appointed time! Pressure to produce. Who fails? The instructor or the student? Either would have to acknowledge failure. Perhaps both.

If the Iraqi people are the fearless, intelligent people we believe they are, they could graduate with honors. The entire Islamic world needs to take part in helping us help them, for beginners, to quell the mayhem.

What would failure look like?

We might have to stand up and say we have failed. Democracy cannot be imposed from without. We were wrong to intervene, in preempting the people’s “right” to revolt and throw off their oppressor. We were wrong not to control, first, the chaos of looting where suddenly people free of tyranny had no compass, and then the factionalism that we, out of our ignorance, did not foresee. We went to a place armed only with the ignorant confidence of military might and dumb adherence to an ideology of revenge for 911 and for papa’s failure to finish the job when he had the chance. (Some will interject the imperialism that follows cheap oil.)  We should, however, stop beating that dead horse. The historians will pick clean those bones, and a “legacy” will go down in flames.

The apologies of losers will come first, at least I hope we will see that courageous act, by which the apologist will surely lose face. Since we have politicians who do not know how to admit “mistakes”, we will have the recriminatory speeches ad nauseum. That will mark our failure more than any admissions of failure.

Yes, failure will be an ugly picture to hang in the halls of our history. We have seldom seen that, except in the Viet Nam adventure. As we withdraw, the flames we leave behind will burn the Iraqi people and purify it for taking on the government that will rise out of the ashes.  It might be another theocracy. However, a seed was planted in a brief moment that may be given a chance to grow. In a forest fire, seeds are released into the soil, and a new forest will grow. In its own time. Several of human lifetimes.

One recent model is Germany, the Weimar Republic, sandwiched between monarchy and facism.

Patience.

Bush’s War(s?)

Why go into Iraq in the first place? Simple, and I’ve not heard this ascription of a motive anywhere. He’s the “Bring-It-On” guy-in-chief, our head-hunter-in-chief. He has a six-shooter on each hip and he wishes he had another hip or two. Why so belicose? He doesn’t know how to talk and, as a war president, he could stay in power by re-election in war time—and ‘da base’ (and some key Senators) was game for all that. Remember “Wanted—Dead or Alive” posters? Remember “Mission Accomplished”, the pre-emptive celebration? Remember the fighting man’s costume, as he dresses up for his Halloween and his tricks or treats? Remember his invited audiences at his free discussion of the issues, the preacher and his choir? And those poor saps of ‘da base’ swallowed it all whole. I am sure it all was a ploy to assure his re-election and continued Republican power. And it neatly avoided his having to talk to potential allies, something which he obviously does not do well. Personally, I have had enough of this shoddy presentation, from him and his whole crew on the good ship lillipop, his cabinet sidekicks, his Supreme Court, his corrupt, inept henchmen in Congress who were slapped down just a bit in the recent election. Throw in the journalists, too, who do not have the probity we need to get at the problems. We got the story from some later, after the fact. Waiting for the book is too late to strike when the iron is hot.

I heard Diane Sawyer in Iran talk to Ahmed Ahmandinijad. (Do I get a lollipop for trying to spell that name from memory? No. I looked it up. It is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) A journalist talking to the Iranian “president”! Asking tough questions. He wouldn’t shake hands with a woman. As a female journalist she should not ever be asking rough and tumble questions; she should be at prayer, tending the house and the kids, cook and be silent and fully covered. Here was our woman journalist doing the work of diplomats. That “president” would be a tough nut to crack, a true believer in the worst and only sense. Diane Sawyer was good, but how would a trained, male diplomat, or even better, a person of equal rank do? (Oh, I forgot for a moment, our “head” man doesn’t do talk.) Mahmoud oiled his way out of every answer into a 1300 a.d. realm of thought process we are not familiar with. The “president” was manifestly arguing from the given premises of religion in all comments. The truth to be obtained out of Iran must come from the objectivity and detachment of outside inspectors. Perhaps the truth can only be obtained from a face-to-face tête-à-tête between our talker-decider-in-chief and their head man, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I have it on speed paste autotext).

The Coming Tragedy for Our Society

What is the most “earth-shaking “ problem we face? Whatever that issue is should determine (mandate) the choice we make for our “head” man. That issue would be foremost in the President’s interest in policy-making, or very prominent in his/her background. As John Kerry said in a talking heads show last Sunday, the most compelling issue of our time is global warming. With my periscopic view from the trenches of the present, I can see the effects of our putting off any whole-hearted attention to that issue bringing more harm to the entire population of Earth than any other problem we can name because any solution requires the cooperation of the entire population of Earth. If that is so, then the candidate who should win the next election for President is the impeccably credentialed Al Gore. Who better to lead us in coming to grips with that issue?

I have re-viewed his speech of January 21, 2007, on C-SPAN, at the DAR Constitution Hall. I put it on a DVD. He is incredibly strong, articulate, knowledgeable, with the big, c lear, resonant, fluent voice and a magnificent presence. If the citizenry cannot see that ‒ how tragic for our world! Nobel Peace Prize? Academy Award? Besides global warming, that speech covered all the complex, thorny problems that toture us. It was a major statement by a leader of the highest order. A man for our time. A well internalized message and sense of mission with no hesitancies, no script, no prompter. Mastery of historical allusions, language, delivery and passion. Most presidential. Sense of democracy, liberties, law, ethics and the functions of government to set policies for the future. Masterful! Powerful! Futuristic! Passionate! Eloquent! THE complete package.

One problem. I’m in a bit of a bind here. I’ve heard such qualities elsewhere. In a greener form. More youthful, but still advanced for his age. I’ve heard many of the others. Only this one compares to Gore. The others are much more conventional. Your everyday presentation. Good, ordinary people with traditional and conventional authority they are, but who pale in comparison — excepting that extraordinarily charismatic one.

Where does that one’s charisma come from? Many of the same qualities I admire in Gore also adhere to that one person now in the race for the highest office. Charisma is a form of authority that should not be followed blindly, as many do. This one’s authority has been earned, emanating from ethos and masterful performance, just as Gore’s. I am troubled to be deciding between them.

My great hope is that I will not have to live out the rest of my life under the presidency of a Republican Bush-look-alike, especially knowing that there is greater, untapped talent out there that could have been.

I hope those lesser lights sense the greater good and defer to their betters. That’s tough. I can see and feel and understand their ambition. They can be the touchstones that tests the mettle of the two prominences. I do not think the others can compete with Gore and his double counterpoint.

I do not use the word tragedy carelessly. An accident on a roadway is not a tragedy, as our ‘naive’ tv reporters are wont to say. It can be a catastrophe, or misfortune, etc. A tragedy is a fatal flaw. Modern tragedy transposes the flaw into the circumstances of our society: we are all fatally flawed in what we permit collectively and the sorrow will be widely experienced. Let’s preserve that word for meaningful usage.

It is in that sense I believe that Al Gore should be the next President. Or, still I in the bind, Vice-President.