Blood and Horror

It is normal and it is human to be appalled by the mass murder perpetrated by Hamas and Islamic Jihad on October 7th, 2023, concurrent with Yom Kippur. Some 1400 were killed outright and another 220 or so abducted. Whoever the leadership was on the Arab side did not win hearts and minds that day. It simply provoked a ferocious response from the Israeli Defense Forces and a grand show of solidarity from Israel's sometimes-ambivalent allies in the West. No one wants to hear about decades of Palestinian grievances when unarmed civilians are wantonly massacred. Some have suggested it was about luring the IDF into a trap, street fighting in one of the most densely populated municipalities in the world. Who would want to do combat when hostages are in harm's way?

On the other hand, I am trying to puzzle out media and political responses to yet another war with Palestinians. There are many who are ignorant of the long history preceding this deplorable situation, just as many Americans behaved disingenuously on 9/11. It's easier to justify brutal reprisals when you consider your foe wholly irrational, a mad dog that needs to be put down, like our frequent armed psychopaths who prove a clear and present danger to everyone in their community. Palestinians living on the West Bank are tired of the corrupt leadership of the Palestine National Authority, which hasn't called for elections in over 20 years. Mahmoud Abbas, their president, is almost 88 years old. He's tolerated because Israel and its allies consider him a compliant lackey. More radical groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, partially underwritten by Iran, get attention from young Palestinians, as ISIS and Al-Qaeda did from Arabs in previous decades. A former roommate of mine from Kuwait spoke enthusiastically of ISIS, before its atrocities were well-known 10 years ago. For him, people who took action, however violent, against the status quo were far preferable to living under a repressive monarchy. Post-Arab Spring a decade ago, the same resentment is there. For ambitious young people, unemployed, chafing under strictures imposed by despotic kings or an occupying army (French, Israeli, American, UN) are all seen as obstacles to power, wealth, and the respect of their peers.

Yes, we tell them to get an education, run for office, and effect change non-violently and diplomatically. Why take up arms? Why be so confrontational? Unfortunately, when they see the repressive and corrupt regimes who run governments in the Near East, the lack of opportunity and upward mobility, the social stagnation, and are nurtured by the genocidal hatred of terrorist factions preaching jihad online, it is hard to keep youthful passions in check. I imagine some attackers thought that just taking hostages would garner better press than outright slaughter. Some leaders use atrocity as a means of committing others to be their subordinates. Others use terror as a way to undermine faith in governmental security efforts, as the Viet Cong did while occupying Hue in South Vietnam during the Tet Offensive in 1968. Again, those who take action, however deplorable and counter-productive, will win the support of disaffected youth sooner than parliamentarians whose results seem too paltry and infrequent to be noticed. We in our more democratic United States seem attracted to demagogues and showmen more than experience in governance for some of the same reasons. Shooters, rioters, and influencers posing as Congressmen get all the attention.

So, in the midst of all the horror, the repeated acts of violence (terror, then reprisal), over the centuries, we hear the charge that Palestinians don't want peace and Israel doesn't want a two-state solution. I am sure most people living in this part of the world would appreciate peace like they would enjoy having a good livelihood and good governance. Some parties, as in other countries, profit from stoking the flame rather than putting out the fire. The conflict, which has been going on since Zionists first started resettling the Holy Land in the nineteenth century, and European antisemitism swelled the displacement of Jewry, has been that those living there already were concerned about being displaced by waves of immigrants. We here in the US, of course, can't relate to that problem. 

Fighting erupted when Arabs started to feel threatened by Jewish settlement in increasing numbers after the fall of Ottoman rule. The arbitrary boundaries decided after the war muddied the waters, of course.  This culminated in the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, where many Arabs were displaced and lands seized after the intervening armies of neighboring countries, whose nationhood also became possible after World War I, were defeated. The UK had to give up its administration of the lands won from the Turks as well. The British had promised Arab leaders that they would control the huge number of Jewish refugees. Holocaust survivors, unable to reclaim lands and property confiscated by the Nazi regime and its abettors, whose families had been murdered, had few other options but to go to Palestine. They weren't welcomed by former neighbors. After all, before the war, few countries, including the US, were willing to take them in before World War II. And new wave of antisemitism was sweeping the Soviet Union.

The Nazi regime had wielded influence in the Near East through figures like the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, during the war. Arab nationalists, asserting their independence from colonial rule, saw the formation of a Jewish state as a galvanizing force of unity among tribal factions frequently fighting for control. The Mufti's expressly antisemitic views fed into this, for historically Jews had fared better under Arab and Turkish control than under that of Christians. The post-war conflicts, including the 1967 6-Day War, the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and so on, have stoked a deep sense of resentment in Arabs towards those who rule over them, including those who chose to create diplomatic ties with Israel, as was the case with Egypt's Anwar Sadat.

Ask someone who has lived somewhere for a long time, especially on a multi-generational basis, and they will tell you they, or their forebears, resented having to relocate somewhere else because their lands were now under someone else's control. While land may be lost because of natural disasters (volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, landslides, flooding, climate change), man-made disasters (soil contaminated by radioactive and other toxic wastes, mining failures, eroded and exhausted soil) or development (eminent domain seizures of land for dams, expanded roadways, or other public works), no one is happy to lose land by conquest. Indigenous peoples don't want reservation lands for compensation; they want their ancestral lands, the source of so much of their religious culture. Jews are not going to give back the land seized after so much military sacrifice. Most Palestinians are not content to live somewhere bequeathed to them by Israel in exchange for the recognition of the state of Israel. The neighboring countries of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt have not welcomed Palestinian refugees, who are seen as troublemakers. 

If Israel succeeds in destroying Hamas, which might also prove the destruction of Gaza, I don't know where the refugees are going to go. Utah's own Congressman Burgess Owens is co-sponsoring a bill to bar Palestinians from coming here. I don't know how this will help anyone, but I see parallels with the abortive attempts of European Jewry to flee here after the 1930s. It's a poor comparison, I know, but the image of emptying the Warsaw Ghetto also comes to mind. Israel obviously has no intention of putting Palestinians in death or concentration camps, but they just may have to go elsewhere. If Owens' alarmism dies down, it still seems like there are large swathes of arid land here and elsewhere Gazans might safely relocate. An awful lot of land in this country is owned but untenanted. I foresee trouble ahead if countries with dwindling populations persist in their xenophobic, cumbersome emigration policies. Eventually, desperate multitudes are going to storm the gates, and no draconian laws, barricades or armed guards will be able to hold them back. If you are fighting for your life and family, and have no other recourse, you will do whatever it takes. The hordes will descend upon us and other countries, and governments will simply have to face reality. Like changing our polluting, fossil fuelish ways we will have to change.

A New Beginning

For some years now, I have entertained the notion of producing a blog. I have produced an odd entry here or there but thought I should enhance my jottings with eye-catching graphics and banners and all the other beeps and whistles associated with a professional production. Needless to say, nothing has happened. Since I enjoy writing and haven't published, I thought I might put something out on a regular basis. I have shared writings with people at work but thought I could at least expand my readership. So, for now, I will offer up some commentary on whatever concerns me, and perhaps others, at the moment. I will include excerpts from works in progress and a joke or two. If all of my posting comes across as risible, that may or may not be intentional. As time progresses, I will make these text blocks look more attractive.

Attempts at Humor

I have decided that one sure way to make an international crisis disappear, such as the recent earthquakes in Afghanistan, floods in South Asia, civil war in Sudan, or even the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is for Hamas to instigate a major war with Israel.

A furious Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu allegedly held an emergency meeting with his intelligence officers demanding to know how Hamas could have invaded Israel from Gaza under their very noses. After much recrimination and soul-searching, one officer conceded, "We just didn't think Hamas could harm us that much." Another added, "To reference the English poet John Milton, like Samson of old, we were left 'eyeless in Gaza'".

I recently read Yuval Levin's A Time to Build: From Family and Community to Congress and the Campus, How Recommitting to Our Institutions Can Revive the American Dream (Basic Books, 2020), which argues cogently that our declining trust in government, law, journalism, institutional religion, family, education, scientific research, corporations, the medical profession (and, I would add, the stock market) can only lead to weakness and fragmentation. Everything is performative, little based upon group consensus or community objectives anymore. I agree with him 100%. We can't hope to make our society great if we burn it all down. On the other hand, I think many Americans would rather embrace anarchy than run the risk of being institutionalized.

From the work-in-progress Encyclopedia of Diabolical Pontifications:

Absurd: Originally associated with nonsense and the irrational, as well as more serious ruminations about the hapless plight of humanity in the face of unmasterable cosmic forces (see Existentialism), it will be more closely linked to a type of humor, especially enjoyed by sophisticates, collegians, and connoisseurs. In a world saturated with electronic media, where demarcations assigned as entertainment, information, and advertising are in constant flux, even blurry, absurdists, satirists and humorists will be hard-pressed to come up with material any more outlandish than what is found in daily discourse.

Abuse:  Applied to those who form dependencies upon certain vices or substances, to their physical or spiritual detriment. More broadly, it is a popular pastime for those who wield some sort of power over others. Adult guardians will abuse their wards, which could include children, the physically or mentally disabled, or the aged. Bullying spouses and partners will torment those they claim to love. Bosses will terrorize subordinates. Landlords will exploit tenants. Mentors will torture pupils. Gurus and clergy will molest trusting disciples. Coaches will mistreat athletes worse than drill instructors will conscripts. Guards and police will extract corrupt favors from vulnerable inmates and compromised outlaws, or plant incriminating evidence against the guiltless. Youth leaders will betray the trust and innocence of their charges. Not content to waste the lives of loyal young men and women, warlords will even compel kidnapped children to commit atrocities. Human traffickers will keep the ancient horrors of slavery alive and well into the next century. Politicians and courts will, while proclaiming the inviolability of children against predation, try and sentence juvenile offenders to serve time among voracious adult inmates. Surviving victims seeking legal redress will be traumatized in police interrogations, pilloried in the courtroom via cross-examination, reprimanded by unsympathetic judges, and excoriated by public outcry in favor of the abuser, if a popular celebrity. Employment will be hard to find if the victim is publicity-shy. Life is suffering, so the Buddhists say. Indeed, society's continuance depends upon someone else's sacrifice.

Can We Be Both Sex and Body-Positive and Also Anti-Pornography?

Can We Be Both Sex and Body-Positive and Also Anti-Pornography?

Recently, I heard Gayle Ruzicka, the outspoken leader of the Utah chapter of The Eagle Forum, complain on KUER-FM's RadioWest program about some of the sex education curricula used in local public schools. She suggested that if children in a classroom asked about matters pertaining to sexual technique or contraception, they should be referred to school counselors or nurses. Or, they should be talked to privately, undoubtedly in concert with a teacher and parents present. She was concerned about teachers going beyond the legal guidelines, which prohibit anything smacking of advocacy for sexual experimentation or contraception. She didn't want kids exposed to ideas their parents might disapprove of in a group setting. She, like many parents, would prefer that children abstained from sexuality activity until they are mature enough and married enough to handle it. Teen pregnancy, abortion, sexually transmitted illnesses, of course, are serious matters in every society. Promiscuity, it can be safe to say, does not promote enduring, loving relationships. Getting involved with sex too early can lead to lasting trauma and tragedy. Human experience teaches us that people are liable to fornicate or commit adultery at any stage beyond puberty. However, if children are singled out for asking uncomfortable questions, we still stigmatize them. Sending a child to a counselor or nurse is associated with either punishment or illness, not healthy curiosity. Waiting to address something "after class" is still associated with punishment. We are still telling kids they are better off going to their peers or the wild and woolly world-wide web for taboo inquiries.

However, I question whether we are helping children develop any normal, clinical understanding of matters like reproduction and healthy sexual satisfaction by shutting down the conversation, or exiling them to a school resource person. Could there be such a thing as having a licensed sex therapist handy, too? After all, children may bring up all sorts of topics these days, like divorce, infidelity, blended families, masturbation, gender dysmorphia, intersexuality, asexuality, same-sex attraction, statutory rape, incest, bestiality, transvestism, sado-masochism, and various fetishes and perversions. At the very least, boys will get erections and girls periods. Wet dreams are not unheard of, either, even among the very chaste. I would agree that schools should be respectful of children's own feelings of self-worth and not instil a hostile environment of shame or embarrassment. If kids are taught differently at home about matters of chastity or celibacy, these should be respected. Parents can choose whether or not they want their children taught in schools about reproduction. It is a shame, however, that neither teachers nor parents are required to deal with such matters in an informed, candid, non-judgmental fashion.

I would like to address another matter as well, which one might call the mystery of corporeal representation. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. For many years, representatives of my faith have addressed matters of sexual morality, modest attire, marital fidelity, contraception, gender equality, and, to a lesser extent, gender identity. It is a faith which, while centered in salvation through the teachings and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, also places great weight upon the survival of the family unit in the eternities, forging links between progenitors and posterity over countless generations. For people to be truly happy, they need happy homes, which include parents which love each other and their children. Pornography intrudes upon domestic bliss and disrupts healthy relationships. June D. Jones, who presides over the Primary Organization in my church, responsible for the religious training of children ages 3-12, quotes the organization Fight the New Drug in enumerating pornography's common ill effects in her article "Addressing Pornography: Protect, Respond, and Heal" (Ensign, October 2019, 22):

• Porn can change and rewire your brain, and studies show , that it can even make your brain smaller and less active.
• Porn can be addictive.
• Porn will destroy your self-confidence.
• Porn can leave you lonely.
• Porn can hurt those you love.
• Porn can ruin healthy sexuality.
• Porn is connected to violence.
• Porn causes people to eventually become dishonest.
• Porn will rob you of your time and energy.
• Porn causes depression, anxiety, and shame.

While some might provide counter-arguments, no one will dispute that pornography has this effect on many, if not most, people. Not all people die of liver disease and brain damage from alcohol consumption, or of the many fatal diseases associated with tobacco, but this should not discourage public health officials from warning about these risk. So, we should be concerned about the pervasiveness of pornography, including the do-it-yourself aspects associated with phone cameras, web browsers, and instant messaging platforms. What caught my attention was a later article in the same Ensign issue, "Four Ways to Protect Your Family Against Pornography" (p. 60), in which is stated:

Our bodies are a sacred gift from God, and our sexual feelings are normal and good when used in harmony with their divine purpose. Pornography is designed to arouse and exploit sexual feelings. It portrays people not as children of God but as objects to use for selfish desires. Even young children can learn to recognize it in a simple way: “You might accidentally see a picture or video of someone with their clothes off. That’s called pornography. When you see it, you might feel an ‘uh-oh’ feeling inside. That’s the Holy Ghost telling you, ‘That’s pornography. Stay away.’” [Italics mine].

Our legalistic society tends to make matters of simple ethical and moral concern extremely difficult to sort out for adults, let alone explain to children. Still, it bothers me when a child is told that "a picture or video of someone with their clothes off" is tantamount to pornography. It reinforces the notions of shame which I believe well-intended people like Gayle Ruzicka wish to maintain in our classrooms. Without Internet or unlocked cable TV access, unclad people can still show up in many places. Images of naked, or partially naked, people can be found in anatomy and health textbooks, medical journals, health, fashion, and fitness magazines, art galleries and museums, public sculptures, and old National Geographic magazines, to name very few. People are often immodest in public in the summer, in sunny climates, and at the beach. Children may see a children's picture book or video which explains reproduction and puberty. Learning how to draw and paint requires the study of the human form, in most courses. Children may happen upon a nature documentary which portrays animals copulating, or see something mystifying going on between household pets or zoo animals. They are bound to see more of these sorts of things if raised on a farm, certainly. Somewhere along the line, they may see their parents, siblings, or other relations naked, accidentally. One would hope they catch no one copulating, as that would surely inspire a nuclear response. Some countries do not prohibit public nudity, while some others would see acceptably modest attire in the United States as not covering up enough. Some faiths have tried to get around the problem by proscribing representational art altogether.

So, another unenumerated, deleterious effect of pornography might be to render all representation of the human form suspect. While shame and disgust with the body and its functions remain intrinsic to many cultures, and has persisted in Christian culture since its emergence during the Roman Empire, I would argue that a key to addressing the many negative influences of pornography is to emphasize the positive aspects of sexuality and having a body to children, as soon as they can be taught about them. Sexual intimacy, within proper boundaries of marriage, with consideration shown to the personal needs of both spouses, is one of the great joys in life. Respect for our own bodies, and those of others, as well as understanding how they work, can be very liberating. When someone's body and/or personality is attractive to a child, it should be recognized as normal. Shame, disgust, or lust are some of the other possible responses. These should be recognized as well. Since I believe people are born into this world to learn how to function with a body, it is heresy to try to associate bodies with only negative or pejorative connotations. How dare we denigrate God's creations? At the same time, we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that any seemingly benign portrayal of human anatomy, sexuality, or even excretory functions can be devoid of erotic associations for someone, somewhere.

Many people today, from a wide spectrum of cultures, ages, and social classes, feel alienated, confused and frustrated about their gender identity, familial bonds, social interaction, marital status, corporeal image, and erotic urges. How can religion address these? All faiths have something to say positive to say about charity, neighborliness, compassion towards strangers, peaceable dealings, toleration, honesty, and the need to one's ego and pride in check. Not all address the need for domestic bliss. Nor do all profess the same squeamishness about the human body that the faiths which have originated in the Near East do. Members of my faith and others of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions can learn from these. This is why interfaith dialogue is so important, simply because all belief systems are prone to inherit fanciful, obsolete or even pernicious notions due to human imperfection. There is plenty of wisdom to go around, and no credo has a monopoly upon it.

I also think scientific knowledge is called for, too, as some taboos have, frankly, worn out their usefulness, particularly those which are proving injurious to personal hygiene and health. Nevertheless, science is not in a position to dictate moral conduct or address spiritual matters. It can, however, inspire greater appreciation for the works of the divine, even if not directly ascribing aspects of the natural world to a higher power or presence. Children need sex education. Adults need sex education. Human relationships are complicated. Schools and science cannot provide all the answers, but can provide guidance about what pairings work out, and which ones don't. They can also explain some of the role of hormones and the reproductive system in influencing our actions and thoughts, how pregnancy is achieved, and how genital contact allows certain diseases to be transmitted. Kids should know what is both healthy and unhealthy about sex, and why each body is so different. Instead of shame and secrecy, kids and adults need to know where they can get authoritative information, and what scientifically verifiable facts exist about human physiology. Religion can give guidance about how one should live with this knowledge. Otherwise, children and adults will continue to turn to "adult entertainment" and snake oil peddlers for their troubling, embarrassing and taboo questions. If religious and scientific leaders are to make any headway against the Age of DIM (Disinformation, Ignorance and Misinformation), we need to quit shying away from The Talk.

On the Cultural Roots of the Abortion Debate

We have been wrangling with restrictions upon abortion as a contraceptive procedure throughout my life, with many lawmakers now hoping to overturn the landmark Rowe v. Wade decision of 1973, thanks to a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court, and the chance of it becoming a super majority in the next few years. Georgia and Alabama's new draconian measures have been in the news, with Alabama's getting the most attention, because it vows to jail insubordinate abortion providers with up to 99 years in prison. Abortion is currently pretty restricted in most states. Indeed, of the many state legislatures which have agonized about the plight of fetuses, few, it seems, have shown the same solicitude when it comes to the needs of young children, their family life, or even their education. Alabama, for example, hasn't shown much concern for public health for years. Even prenatal and postnatal checkups for young mothers aren't on lawmakers' radar in most states, which might prevent miscarriages, or reduce infant or maternal mortality. Only the first months of viability keeps them up in the night. After that, ladies and gents, you're on your own, unless corporations, churches and charities want to step in.

The conservative ethos is, We won't worry about your family's welfare, because that is a private matter, unless you are receiving public assistance, or violating our laws. If you receive assistance, you are a parasite, unless you are a big corporation promising jobs. If you violate laws, we will lock you up and throw your family to the wolves. Unless, of course, you are a big corporation who may have just made a little mistake because of anti-business laws passed by our liberal colleagues, like violating labor, environmental or campaign finance laws. No big deal. 

Well, let's take a broader view of our culture. What messages are given to females from girlhood? Don't have sex until marriage, but don't be too prissy, or guys will think you're gay or frigid. If you do have extramarital sex, just don't get pregnant. Perhaps you got pregnant because you got intoxicated, forgot pills, and he didn't want to use a condom. After all, how else will a male get sexual satisfaction, unless a potential partner has clouded judgment? How else will one's shyness be overcome, except with drugs and booze at bars and parties? Billions of dollars are spent on reinforcing this unsubtle meme, rightly or wrongly. It keeps the legal drug and alcohol interests in the black, after all, and employs people, after all.

If you get pregnant, don't expect the father (if known) to stick around. It's cool to have a baby, since celebrity role models celebrate it. You can do it all by yourself, like other wealthy woman have. On the other hand, poor single moms are blamed for society's ills, because they either are on public assistance, or their kids are neglected, according to persistent memes. Single motherhood will also adversely affect your sex life, especially if you can't get your girlish figure back. And what if you can't get reliable babysitters (like your parents or grandparents) to watch your progeny while you get some much needed me-time? How many workplaces are openly hostile to the needs of working mothers, like having a breastfeeding break, or staying home with sick kids? We haven't even gotten to kids with medical or special needs. 

Oh, and let's back up. You, the mother-to-be, are told your child may be born with birth defects. You may be told that there are physical risks to being pregnant or giving birth, very much a reality in the past, still something of an issue today, especially in developing countries. You may have health issues yourself. And we aren't talking about women who already have families, maybe even spouses, who may have issues with unplanned pregnancies. In spite of all these potential challenges, most women give birth. Some use contraception. Some get abortions. Society stigmatizes this last group. It's always the woman's responsibility to maintain the social order. If not, mostly male lawmakers will see to it that abortion providers are barred from the practice, morning after pills are unavailable, and offenders are punished with jail or everlasting contempt.

My solution? One option is to pay women to have babies and give them up for adoption, if they aren't up to assuming this superhuman task, because of some of the reasons I have mentioned. Pay them, even if the guy decides to actually take responsibility as their father, and the mother wants to retain custody. At least give them some inducement not to create another dysfunctional, single parent family. Offer free life skills counseling for all prospective parents. We should also make it cheaper, and less burdensome to adopt, and address issues when the biological parents choose to be part of their kids' lives. With all of the divorce going on, it can't be that much different at whose house the children split their time. Are kids any more likely to be kidnapped by biological, or non-custodial, parents? It seems like its becoming a moot point, with so many spouses not staying together anymore.

It would be far cheaper to do these than to continue to waste public funds fighting heavy-handed legislative measures in court, even if they make legislators look good to their conservative, church-going constituents, and allow them to parade around like cocksure roosters. Again, as I have said, this steadfast defense of alleged principle flies in the face of routine cuts, or freezing of increases, to funds to other government programs which would benefit the young. 

Another option is to fund voluntary sterilization of both sexes. No eggs and sperm? No problem. Involuntary sterilization we associate, of course, with the bad old eugenics era and fascism. It didn't work out so well in India in the 1970s, when Indira Gandhi tried to impose it, either. This runs afoul of some religious sensibilities, certainly. Yet, since so many rankle at exploding populations, especially among ethnic minorities, it may offer a solution to a society always allergic to criminal activities of the bored youth it refuses, or cannot, care for. It would be far easier, however, to make birth control options more widely available, such as self-administered abortifacients. After all, we use pills, shots and elixirs for everything else, don't we.

Option 3? Buy, or subsidize the purchase of, sexbots for the kind of irresponsible and predatory males prone to impregnate females. Develop sexbots which are sophisticated enough to give such people a challenge, so they won't get kicks from stalking and assaulting real women. It might at least take some sex offenders out of circulation. Less public intoxication and abandonment issues, too. 

What is more, we shouldn't stigmatize women who simply prefer the company of other women, or want to raise children on their own. Make sperm donations available, and cheap. The ideal is for both parents to be there, in the home, co-parenting. One would want the couple to at least be of two genders, according to cultural history. That this hasn't been the case, especially with both parents staying married and healthy enough to raise their biological children to adulthood, is well-known. Deviation from the ideal may be greater today, perhaps, with marriage being less fashionable, same-sex, transgender and infertility issues being more prominent.

Anyway, I'm sure the paternal state will continue to police women's wombs, hound men away from households getting assistance, lock up fathers for non-violent offenses, and do all the meddlesome things which libertarians find absurd, just to make sure no one looks soft on crime. Sometime, though, sane people will have to decide that our sexual culture is so severely messed-up, that encouraging unsafe, back alley, abortions, poor reporting of such procedures, and unwanted children--in other words, a return to the good old days of, say, Dickensian England--is hardly a panacea. Giving people freedom, and then taking it away, is hardly conducive to the legitimation of governance. Carrots like bribing unwed parents to marry and/or stay together, encouraging adoption, providing free counseling, care throughout the natal cycle, less-restricted access to other forms of birth control, will help. 

More appreciation of the matronly figure, and motherhood, in public and at work, will work some wonders. Anything promoting fatherly attachment, male duty to support spouses/partners and families, shared visitation, should be a bipartisan issue. Parenthood, in general, should be pervasive in public discourse; not how great it is to be unattached, and orgasmic. Sex-positivity, partner bonding, and better education about family structure and reproduction, I think, are all crucial to a healthy society. Hooking up and stoner sex are not part of a healthy society; anymore than pornography, prostitution and glory holes are. Sexbots and sex toys are necessary evils because, frankly, some people need something extra that is non-violent, and non-reproductive. Otherwise, they will continue to perpetrate their deviant fantasies with the innocent. We don't need to hopelessly wring our hands about sexual harassment, battery and STDs. Science can come to the rescue, if we let it. Family values, though in a broader and more enlightened sense, may yet prevail if the subject is reclaimed from the dark confines of our creaky culture wars and championed again by social progressives. Otherwise, the fundamentalists will triumph. Then, heaven help us all.

Where People Get Donald Trump, and Contrarians, Wrong

I am not a fan of Donald John Trump. I would never vote for him. The other day, however, I had to question my own prejudices when dealing with the effusive praise for him by a coworker. Why do I feel such a visceral reaction towards him, and other leaders whom I deem antithetical to my own values? I believe, in the case of POTUS, that one should start with recognizing some of what attracts others to him.

• He strives to keep his campaign promises, unlike other presidents.
• He is a consummate master of modern media, understanding implicitly how to deliver his message to the masses, especially in ways that make for good television entertainment.
• He is very good at out-maneuvering his opponents.
• He is probably enjoying his presidency more than his predecessors, since he doesn't feel responsible for how the world works, and doesn't lose sleep over what fires need to be put out.
• He has addressed some legitimate issues, such as ailing infrastructure, trade imbalances, and the high costs of garrisoning the world.
• He is adept at keeping his name in the news every day, and showcasing the defensiveness and passive aggression of his enemies.

To understand the Trump phenomenon more fully, I would remind us that stories are always more entertaining than fact-checking. We don't go to sports events in order to hear from sideline judges, referees and umpires. Jury trials are decided by persuasiveness, not the mere trundling out of evidence and invoking of legal codes. People buy on the basis of passion; their shopping experience is more important than the attributes of the good or service they are purchasing. Logic is brought in to justify decision-making, but is not necessarily the chief catalyst. In the case of Trump supporters, he is the showman who knows how to deliver what they want to hear and see. His detractors, on the other hand, come across as party poopers, as the coolers who show up at casinos when one is on a hot streak. They are the prissy nitpickers, the sore losers, the ones the schoolyard bullies made fools of when it was time for them to counterattack. Unlike disciplinarian teachers and other superiors, they lack the charisma and legitimacy to make much headway against the star of the show. They are like the censors and watchdogs who seem to have little purpose other than to spoil a good evening. They seem outraged less out of moral affront than out of envy, because he commands so much attention, and won't yield the stage. He serves as a convenient foil for others seeking to promote a conservative agenda, who obtain less scrutiny because of his notoriety. It is not just one person leading the charge. Changing who presides will not greatly upset the agenda of a deeply-entrenched establishment. It will not eliminate racial hatred, xenophobia and bigotry in general. No one should be lulled by such a specious argument. The ills of society will never be cured by mere elections.

Trump may remind us of the class clowns we knew growing up. In the Washington Post book Trump Revealed from 2016, some remember him being just that. Some want the teacher to get on with the lesson and put the miscreant in his or her place. Others like the break in the action, or welcome some levity in the midst of a dreary lesson. Others take the side of their peer against the instructor and his or her perceived tyranny. For a conservative icon, Trump (and the media culture of the Right) come across as bad boys and girls willing to prod and pummel the uptight liberal establishment, at risk of official opprobrium. This card has been played for many years, even when conservatives have dominated the Presidency, Congress and, increasingly, the judiciary. It is not a simple matter of hypocrisy or deception. This is the narrative the Right promotes, because victimizers like to see themselves as victims, and the loyal base likes to see themselves as fellow sufferers. Wealthy people and corporations striving to avoid estate taxes are seen as peers of the middle and lower classes, since the less fortunate would be rich, too, if they just tried harder. That they also promote policies damaging to the well-being of the general public (like weakened labor, environmental and safety regulations) seems beside the point. Liberals are the nagging sourpusses, the holdouts that the rest cannot abide, who stand in the way of economic prosperity. The confidence in him is so strong among his supporters, they might greet imminent annihilation with a smile on their faces, since he could provide a deux ex machina at any moment. Cognitive dissonance is that strong. Facts will not win them over. On the other hand, as the recent altercation involving Covington Catholic High School students in Washington, D.C. shows, first impressions are not necessarily definitive.

When speaking with someone whose politics are on the opposite side of the fence, one should keep the following principles in mind:

1. No one's perception is perfect, and sufficient, in and of itself.
2. If one values friendship with another, one shouldn't insist upon being right, or evangelizing another.
3. The other person has unique gifts, which should be validated and shared, for that person's own well-being and for one's own. Political or other differences are too slight to merit the exclusion of another's other qualities.
4. The degree to which the super rich, and corporations, control our society and buy our political representatives, is a concern for all of us, conservative and liberal. Societal divisions blunt united efforts to address the disparities among us, and the dwindling of governmental services. If we want better schools, roads, public safety, and access to medical care, we need a united voice.
5. What is truth, and reality, as some say, is simply an illusion most of us agree upon.
6. To change society, one has to work with political rivals, since there are not enough progressives out there to sway the public. One needs votes of all sorts of people to get anything done.
7. Many people profit from sowing dissension. Anger stoking is big business these days, as Charles Duhigg pointed out in a recent Atlantic article. We shouldn't let ourselves get played. A good friend, or family member, is too precious to lose over a paltry political, or ideological, argument. People are entitled to their opinions. The key is to not be baited, or be so ironclad about one's Weltanschauung, that one cannot learn from another. Last year, comedienne Sarah Silverman didn't let herself get unhinged over a rude tweet from a troll. Instead, she got to know him better and was actually able to get him some help. Village Square, a national non-profit, is promoting a return to civil discourse and civic engagement.
8. No political party, no leader, is immune to abusing power if there is nothing to check their authority and influence. Compromise is crucial to governance. Human polity is simply too imperfect in its implementation to function correctly without it. Tyranny results without restraints.

It takes a lot of practice to de-escalate. It is not easy to reach out to someone with whom one doesn't normally associate. However, as living, breathing members of communities, we are all in this together. We can't afford to let demagogues of any ilk push our buttons and profit from our disunity. Do not presume you, or I, or anyone else has all the answers. Do assume that you, or I, or someone else, can always learn from another. That includes non-citizens, the elderly, and little children. We can learn a lot from the non-human creatures who share our habitat, too. There is only one planet found to be a suitable home for us, notwithstanding centuries of speculative fiction to the contrary. Let's not destroy ourselves over differences of opinion. Our fate depends upon it.

If I Were Dictator (A Fantasy Campaign)

If I Were Dictator...

1. News Interview

Host: Good evening, I’m Trevor Larue.  Tonight on Progressive Fox Hunt, we have as our guest Rick Salubrious, who is running for the office of The One Mighty and Strong.  He is the nominee of the Fit Utopian Nationalists (FUN) Party.  Tell us more about your party, Mr. Salubrious?

Rick: Thank you, Trevor.  Our philosophy is that a fit citizenry deserves fit leaders.

Host: So, Mr. Salubrious, what does your party want to do about public health?

Rick: Health

We will have International Health Insurance.  You can go to the best doctor, MD or naturopath, anywhere in the world for the best price.  

Everyone will have a chip implanted to monitor overall health.  You can have diagnostics performed for both body and motor vehicle at any garage.  

All drugs and herbal supplements will be legalized and covered by insurance.  Big Pharma will have to lower prices in order to compete.

To eliminate racial differences and promote hybrid vigor, everyone will donate their sperm and eggs to a National Fertility Clearinghouse.  Genetically fit couples will then receive implants of genetically fit zygotes.  No one will know the race, or sex, of the fetus beforehand.  Every birth will be a surprise.  

If there are still unwanted children, my EBaby National Auction Service will take care of that.

Schizophrenics will be given Bluetooth ear sets to wear, so they won’t be stigmatized.

No more fat people.  All generators will be human-powered, using treadmills, ellipticals, stationery bikes, etc..  No sweat, no juice.  The smart grid that smarts.

To protect ourselves from global warming, a giant, self-healing  membrane will be constructed around the earth, filtering out the bad stuff and keeping the good stuff in, like moisture.  We will call our planet Terrarium Firma.

Host: What about immigration?

Rick: Immigration

Under the Even Fairer Boundaries Initiative, anyone living in the Western Hemisphere, from Baffin Island to Tierra del Fuego, is declared a US citizen, since the US will be annexing  the land anyway.  We’ll call ourselves the Transamerican Commonwealth.

Host: Foreign aid?

Rick: Foreign Aid

No more something for nothing.  If they can’t pay us back, then we will claim prime real estate, which will be used as either nature preserves or homelands for stateless ethnic groups and tribes, complete with their own casinos.

And while we’re at it, let’s take unwanted dogs, cats, horses and other pets out of the shelters and put them on people’s plates where they belong.

Host: Defense?

Rick: Defense

Every able-bodied person will be drafted for national service,.  Think how many millions will then be in shape, engaged in public works and humanitarian projects.

Nuclear warheads will be converted into reactors for unmanned exploratory drones sent into deep space, forming an interstellar communications relay.  Can you imagine all the E.T.’s gawking at all of those UFOs sent from earth?  We’ll settle this Area 51 mystery stuff once and for all.

Host: Crime?

Rick: Criminal Justice

By decriminalizing drugs, there will be less need for jails and prisons.  For incorrigible fraudsters and gangsters, they will be extraordinarily renditioned to trouble spots like Waziristan and Somalia, where they can try fighting their way back out.

Host: What about special legislation?

Rick: Lawmaking and Governance

No more gridlock.  The 535 members of House and Senate will engage in sports tournaments to see whose legislation advances.  Cage Fighters for Congress!  CSPAN ratings will go through the roof!

The bidding process for government contracts will be transparent.  Now, contractors will have to compete for best entertainer in a Survivor-like reality series.  Survival of the funniest!

People will no longer be prosecuted for public indecency. Instead, we will arrest for aesthetic offenses, if they don’t look good naked.

There will be no censorship unless critics, on their own, can come up with a more entertaining replacement.

All marriages will come with renewable warranties.  Younger men will be required to marry older women, so there are fewer widows, and better mutual orgasms.

Host: International relations?

Rick: Diplomacy

International disputes will be resolved by gladiator competitions between leaders of the respective countries.  For competing religious fundamentalists, they will be only allowed to compete against other fundamentalists to see whose God is better.  If you want your side to win, elect somebody who’s buff.  No more sending young men and women in harm’s way to save a potentate’s fat backside.

 

Host: How about our schools?

Rick: Education

Schools will emphasize vocational skills.  Kids will learn via interactive, networked gaming.  Lots of time for recess.  For those who prefer the arts and humanities, practical skills will be emphasized, like how to look hot while performing a concerto, or modern pole dancing.

Student athletes, artists, researchers, and scientists will all have something in common: they’ll all get paid for their work.

Host: What about affordable housing and the homeless problem?

Rick: Housing

Abandoned dwellings will be given rent-free to low-income and homeless individuals.  They only will only be required to maintain the property, brew biofuels, and grow fruits, vegetables, grain, and mood-enhancing crops, in order to be self-sustaining.

Host: What about our energy needs?  Our infrastructure?  How are you going to put people back to work?

Rick: Transportation, Energy and Jobs

We will have state-of-the-art express trains competing with the airlines.  Whoever gets there first, the loser pays the fare.  We’ll move freight and passengers lickety split.

We will revolutionize agriculture.  Empty lots will become community gardens.  Everyone will be allowed to raise fruits, vegetables, herbs and hallucinogens on their property, rented or owned.  In addition, everyone will be allowed to make his own ethanol and biodiesel from manure, garbage and yard waste.  Think of all those engines running on methane or moonshine!  This will stimulate the entrepreneurial spirit.

Public lands will be leased for mineral extraction and other commercial uses under the following conditions:  

1. The lands must be ugly to look at.  
2. The developers provide their own water.  
3. They leave the lands looking prettier afterward.

All sewers and landfills will be providing us fuel and fertilizer for our agricultural needs.

Host: Looks like we’re out of time.  Any final words?

Rick: Vote for Rick for DIC-tator!

2. Campaign advertisement

Good morning.  I’m Rick Salubrious.  That’s SALUBRIOUS, not lugubrious or dubious, as some of my opponents allege.  I’m the  Fit Utopian Nationalist, or FUN, Party nominee for the One Mighty and Strong.  I’m a biogeneticist by occupation, and grew up on a family farm.  We’re going to address our biggest national problem.  It’s not what you think it is.  I call it the Four F’s: Factory Farm Fed Fatties.  Our solution is giving the opposition fits.

FAMILIES

First, we need to fix families.  We’ll let everyone who wants to marry, but not everyone will be allowed to have kids.  All marriages will come with renewable warranties. To ensure healthy offspring, eggs and sperm will be contributed to a National Fertility Clearinghouse.  The best genes from all over the world will be mixed and matched to produce babies who are athletic, ambitious, attentive, allergy-free, lean and long.  They’ll be resistant to cold, heat and humidity, and of one, composite race.  Parent’s will have to qualify for these IVT designer babies.  Those having them the old-fashioned way will have to take care of them properly, or they’ll be auctioned off on EBaby.  No more unwanted, abused kids.  And to make sure there are happily married couples, each marriage will come with a renewable warranty.  This is our No Zygote Left Behind Campaign.

EDUCATION

To make sure kids are properly educated, they’ll all be placed on communal farms where they can learn hard work and practical skills like animal husbandry, crop management, maintaining machinery, veterinary science, energy-efficient housing, alternative energy, composting and mulching.  In addition, they’ll learn first aid, wilderness survival, hunting, fishing, and navigating by the stars.  Only those with physical limitations will be so-called knowledge workers.  We’ll have the best broadband available for everyone who wants it, but they’ll be able to handle themselves without it, too. Our Brain Drain will be turned into a Grain Gain.  

HEALTH

How are we going to keep people healthy?  Everyone will have a diagnostic chip implanted.  You can find out the maintenance schedule for you and your vehicle at any garage.  Everyone will have International Health Insurance.  You can go to the best doctors anywhere in the world for the best price.  And your drugs will be cheap, too.  No more illegal drugs.  No more herbal remedies that aren’t covered.  If what gets you high also heals you, no questions asked.

What doesn’t kill you can only make you stronger.  A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

ECONOMY

How are we going to get people working again?  Let’s ask ourselves: What have Americans always been good at?  Farming and fighting.  What was our greatest historic achievement?  Building the Transcontinental Railroad.  We’ve been deindustrializing for 40 years now, so Why not go back to our glory days?  The first step is to impose a universal selective service, so everyone can get in shape, learn how to defend themselves, and persuade the rest of the world to open up their agricultural markets. Instant full employment!  Second, all  unused and abandoned properties will be turned into organic community farms, where people can raise their own livestock, vegetables, fruits, grain, hallucinogens and biofuels.  We’ll take out those useless lawns and flower gardens and grow something we can eat.  To conserve water, farms will employ drip systems and recycle graywater.  We’ll all learn to use waterless, biodigesting latrines which my engineers will render sweet-smelling and bug free.  Lastly, our crops will be shipped on state of the art bullet trains, running on biodiesel, solar, wind and natural gas.  You’ll soon be able to go anywhere you want in  the continental US by express train.  If they don’t get you there before cars, buses and planes do, your fare is free.  Our boots will no longer be on the ground; they’ll be magnetically levitated.

HOMELESS

There’ll be no more homeless.  All these abandoned and foreclosed houses around the country will provide shelter for the needy.  The new tenants will only have to maintain the property and turn useless lawns and yards into food and fuel-yielding fields. We’ll call them E-victory Gardens.  There will be no more euthanizing of stray pets, either.  I’ll make sure they’re taken out of those shelters and put on people’s dinner plates, where they belong.

CRIME

We’re gonna pardon everyone jailed for minor drug offenses, so we can jump start our medicinal herbs industry.  Those who remain a menace to society, like murderers, rapists and predatory lenders, will have to make a decision. We won’t provide free room and board anymore.  If you can’t work for your keep, you will be harvested for organs, used for medical research, or sent to a foreign prison, where they will know how to deal with your kind .  If folks want foreign aid, they’ve got to discipline some troublemakers for us.  We call it the Hoods for Goods Exchange.

DEFENSE

So, what about defense?  First off, I want to get rid of those pesky nukes worldwide.  We’ll take all of these warheads and radioactive waste and use them to power remote sensing missiles, which will be launched into deep space.  Why?  So the huge worldwide UFO community will know once and for all where those E.T.’s are and what they’re up to.  And they’ll happily pay for the whole program.  We call it the Nukes for Kooks Alliance.

FOREIGN POLICY

Next, we’re going to solve our immigration problems.  For starters, everyone living from Baffin Bay to Tierra del Fuego, from Brazil to the Bering Sea becomes an automatic citizen of the Transamerica Commonwealth.  We’ll secure our borders by extending them.  I call this the Even Fairer Boundaries Initiative.

I’m going to handle international disputes and even make them entertaining.  If countries disagree, their leaders will personally settle their differences via a single-elimination, ultimate fighting tournament.  No more wusses will be elected heads of state.  Similarly, I propose that we require our own lawmakers to do the same.  No more gridlock.  Just headlocks.  C-SPAN ratings will go through the roof.  Everyone will want to know how their cage fighting congressman is doing.  Pay per View Politics!

No more free military assistance to other countries.  If they want US protection, they’ve gotta pay for it.  We’ll have the finest mercenary army in the world.  If they ain’t got the do-re-mi, we’ll just confiscate some prime real estate, which we’ll use for relocating stateless peoples, complete with their own casinos, so they can be self-sufficient.  I will call this Ethnic Friendsing.

Last of all, I’m going to keep our enemies well-fed by exporting all of that factory farm fodder and processed junk food overseas.  Let our foes get cholesterol, strokes, hypertension and diabetes instead.  Let them OD on antibiotics, preservatives, herbicides, pesticides, hormone-fed livestock and high fructose corn syrup.  They’ll be too lethargic to want to fight us anymore.  It will be a food fight that actually gets us peace.

ENERGY

Lastly, what about our so-called energy crisis?  We have the largest resource in the world.  It’s called body fat.  We have fat to burn.  Every home will convert to human-powered generators.  If you aren’t cranking, pedaling, lifting, pulling, climbing, or treading, you get no juice.  I call it the Sweat Equity Grid.

CONCLUSION

There you have it.  A fitness plan which will give us a fit constituency and fit leaders.  Vote for FUN!  Vote Rick for DIC-tator!

Political Ideology and Fundamentalism

While reading E. J. Dionne Jr.'s Why the Right Went Wrong: Conservatism from Goldwater to the Tea Party and Beyond (2016), I realized something crucial to our public discussion of holding onto the cherished values of the past amid the onslaught of modernity. Some years ago, I had read Mark Sedgwick's Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century (2009), which chronicled the careers of people like Julius Evola, Frithjof Schuon and René Guénon, who blended Sufism, Hinduism and other eastern beliefs with their own take on the perennial philosophy, a syncretistic concept dating back to Neoplatism, that all religions are essentially one. Sedgwick maintains a blog on this topic. The Perennial Philosophy is also associated with all sorts of New Age views of faith, which glosses over rather ruthlessly the inherent differences, as Stephen Prothero has pointed out in God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter (2010). People don't like to be lumped together, and don't like outsiders misrepresenting their beliefs to others. I got a taste of this when a former Kuwaiti room mate told me he saw no difference between Judaism and Mormonism. I told him that Jews might have something to say about that, let alone Latter-Day Saints.

We still read Evola, Guénon, Schuon and other traditionalists because of their elaborate synthesis of mystical ideas and critique of Western industrial society. We still read philosophers who  like Martin Heidegger and Oswald Spengler for their similar analysis of why modern man is in an existential crisis and his civilization is in decline. Whether it be spiritual or natural alienation, the true or higher self is endangered. What these authors also had in common, however, was their sympathy with Fascism. was really an attempt to fuse politics with mysticism, to wed the technology of the modern world with the efforts to revive a lost imperial state. Modern force of arms would be needed to achieve the conversion of a decadent world back to some more bucolic state.

The same Kuwaiti roommate shared his avowed sympathy for the Islamic State radicals, before their more egregious atrocities came to light. At the time, I saw this as a visceral reaction to the despotism and corruption associated with many Near Eastern governments, towards which the Arab Spring was a reaction. Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia had their revolts, and Turkey had a close brush with a coup. His sentiments were echoed in Morgan Spurlock's prescient documentary Where In the World is Osama Bin Laden from 2008, where widespread dissatisfaction was detected among the young people he was allowed to interview (under restrictive circumstances). I don't believe my roommate was necessarily condoning IS's tactics. I believe he was so sick of political repression and inertia in his own country he was willing to tie his fortune to a lesser-known entity which, at least, is achieving results.

A similar dissatisfaction, I believe, is at the heart of the Donald Trump phenomenon. Many Americans are so fed up with the political establishment, who seems to systematically ignore them, that they are willing to support an avowed "doer", no matter how catastrophic his pledges may seem. They want to shake things up, like my Kuwaiti roommate, and the devil take the consequences. They see him as anti-establishment, since the Republican Party and mainstream press have been his loudest critics, up until he secured his nomination. Even Fox News seemed to oppose his campaign until recently. Why middle class voters feel kinship with a brash billionaire comes down to the accepted notion that only a billionaire has the means to stand apart from special interests, as was the case with Ross Perot. The Bernie Sanders phenomenon, which drew upon wider populist support than Trump, demonstrates some of the same dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton, whom many perceive as just another establishment politician. In spite of Trump's gaffes, the Democratic party cannot see this election as a sure thing. Fear of Trump may not translate into votes for Clinton, especially if voters decide to vote for someone else, or just stay home out of disillusionment.

I am not suggesting from all this that the Tea Party and IS are the same, or that they are part of a Neo-Fascist movement. What they, and the Traditionalists, and religious fundamentalists have in common is a desire to recreate an idyllic past which never existed in the first place. It traces its origins among young academics who never lived in such a society. The Muslim Brotherhood, highly influential upon modern Islamic fundamentalism, traces its roots to Sayyid Qutb, who was appalled by the free-wheeling ways of American college students when he visited there 1948-1950, when he was in his early 40s. Younger, educated people have been at the forefront of other fundamentalist movements in Judaism and Christianity. Fundamentalism and traditionalism, in effect, are actually post-modern movements, and are not the continuation of unbroken traditions. While they attract many who are poor and less-educated, their instigators were part of the elite of society.

Historians have pointed out that many allegedly ancient practices are of more modern invention. Wicca and Freemasonry, while claiming ancient roots, are twentieth-century and eighteenth century creations, respectively. We like to appeal to tradition for our beliefs, but our traditions are not always that old. In some respects, we aren't much different from others who dress up in costumes and try to re-enact famous battles or who want to evoke lost customs and ages, such as the Society for Creative Anachronism. Or, we reimagine the past, as those who embrace the Steampunk lifestyle. A. J. Jacobs has pointed out in his The Year of Living Biblically (2008) the difficulties of turning back the clock and embracing obscurely described customs which aren't fully understood by seasoned scholars, let alone devotees. Would we really want to go back to nature, as portrayed in so many reality shows, without modern conveniences, or medical care, or electricity, or plumbing? For most, the answer is a resounding "No". If anything, rigorous fundamentalism entails a more burdensome lifestyle and more complication than living in the world today.

So, will the Tea Party movement really steer us back to the 1950s? Or the old pre-taxation days of America? Do we want a return to Jim Crow, to closeted homosexuality, back alley abortions, to the Cold War paranoia, and the exclusion of certain ethnic groups from the naturalization process? Will we see a return of high-paying, unskilled industrial jobs? Will our educational infrastructural deficiencies be surmounted by school uniforms and prayer? Will we have more state mental hospitals? Will we see a return to large-scale highway and dam construction, as implemented during the Eisenhower Administration? Will we see less divorce and more traditional marriage? Will people forswear narcotics in favor of alcohol, tobacco, and sedatives? Will we see a revival of fraternal associations? If we imposed an Eisenhower-era taxation system, upper income people would be paying a much larger share than they do today. If people didn't live so long, perhaps the social safety net system would work again. Then we would have to sanction assisted suicide. Will we see a higher birth rate? Not if medical costs continue to spiral for obstetrical care.

I am not suggesting that life is so great today, with fragmenting households and social circles. Life also wasn't that great in the past, either, without the advances in public health and information sources we have today. Neighborhoods, homes weren't necessarily safe back then, either. There was "juvenile delinquency" then, as opposed to "gangs" today. There were slums then, as there are slums, now. Emerging nations, such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, have seen tremendous advances in quality of life and industrial capacity in the last 60 years. American cities have greater ethnic diversity today, though foreign-born citizens were a higher percentage of the population 150 years ago. There are neglected or forgotten customs, crafts, and practices worthy of revival and rediscovery. Our political upheaval today, so reminiscent of the left-oriented unrest of the sixties, with rudeness on the other end of the spectrum, can be seen as healthy if it helps to at least "shake things up". I am not in favor of complacency, of the gap between rich and poor continuing to widen, of an ever-burgeoning prison population and an aging, sickening population which society can't afford to accommodate, or of a young population which we have forgotten how to educate at reasonable cost.

So, there is much to be angry about. I think people need to talk about what can be done to improve society, rather than retreat to their own focus groups and tribes of faith, their gated communities and modern iron curtains of blissful ignorance. We will never be able to fortify ourselves enough in a world where too much is easily known, as quickly as thought, by the global community, for good and ill. Sure, let us preserve dignity, honor, loyalty to shared ideals. But let us not embrace revolution, and hatred, and persecution, just for the hell of it.