- The Little Drummer Child
- Frosty the Snowperson
- We Three Monarchs of Orient (Are)
- (I'm Dreaming of an) Integrated Christmas
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Politically Correct Songs for Christmas
On this Christmas Day, I was reflecting that many of our traditional Christmas songs are not politically correct and therefore need a bit of revision. So, here are a few of my suggested changes:
Monday, December 23, 2013
Pare a Pair of Pears
I noticed a linguistic curiosity today. No, it doesn't have to do with pears or paring them; it has to do with pairs.
We speak of a pair of gloves, a pair of socks, a pair of shoes, even a pair of dice; and those are all clearly sets, or pairs, of two things.
But we also speak of a pair of pants, a pair of scissors, a pair of glasses—eyeglasses, that is. In these cases it's much less clear that we're dealing with two things. I do have a pair of kitchen scissors that separates into two parts--sometimes too readily—presumably for ease of cleaning. But these pairs are normally not two separable things. So why do we treat them, linguistically, as two? Maybe it is because they are sort of bifurcated. You could say that about a pair of pants, pretty clearly. And maybe scissors. But it might be stretching things a little bit to apply this theory of mine to glasses.
Well, people who study language (and I include myself here) come to recognize that you often can't apply "logic" to language. Any language is its own system, and it has very little regard for any external system such as what we call "logic."
Copyright © 2013
We speak of a pair of gloves, a pair of socks, a pair of shoes, even a pair of dice; and those are all clearly sets, or pairs, of two things.
But we also speak of a pair of pants, a pair of scissors, a pair of glasses—eyeglasses, that is. In these cases it's much less clear that we're dealing with two things. I do have a pair of kitchen scissors that separates into two parts--sometimes too readily—presumably for ease of cleaning. But these pairs are normally not two separable things. So why do we treat them, linguistically, as two? Maybe it is because they are sort of bifurcated. You could say that about a pair of pants, pretty clearly. And maybe scissors. But it might be stretching things a little bit to apply this theory of mine to glasses.
Well, people who study language (and I include myself here) come to recognize that you often can't apply "logic" to language. Any language is its own system, and it has very little regard for any external system such as what we call "logic."
Copyright © 2013
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Who Spoke for the Indians?
In the 1850s, the 1830s—in fact for decades before the Civil War—there were well-organized, powerful, and certainly very vocal individuals and groups calling for an end to slavery—at least in the North.
On the other hand, the Indians (Native Americans) were being treated very badly and even exterminated; and I have never heard that there was even one individual who raised his voice in protest against this.
The treatment of the Indians is a sad, disgusting, tragic, criminal, and extremely long story. The saga could just go on and on.
Just a very few examples: During the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the Cherokees and several other tribes living in the Southeast of the United States were forcibly removed. With no more than the possessions they could carry on their backs they were forced to walk all the way to Oklahoma, even through bad winter weather. Many, especially the oldest and the youngest, died of disease or starvation. (Once they got there, they were told, Oklahoma, or "Indian Territory," would be theirs forever; and that turned out to be just one of innumerable, countless promises to the Indians that turned out to be totally meaningless.)
Similarly, in 1864, the Navajo were also "removed," and made to walk several hundred miles, and for a while were impounded in basically a concentration camp where nearly half of them died. (There is a lasting legacy of this in that all Navajo now alive are descendents of some 2,000 who survived this so-called Long Walk and so are inbred and suffering from diseases that result from the build-up of recessive genes.)
When the Indians were not being made to go on long forced marches like these, they were otherwise being killed by being given smallpox-infected blankets; being shot; having their villages burned and their crops destroyed; or having the buffalo, their source of food and nearly everything else in the case of the Plains Indians, exterminated. Or once on reservations and removed from their hunting grounds and thus no longer able to provide for themselves, they were not receiving food destined for them because of corrupt Indian agents.
Indians who somehow survived all the genocide by shooting and starvation had to undergo having their culture destroyed. Indian children, once in the power of whites—missionaries or teachers in special Indian schools—were forbidden to speak their language. Along with their native religious beliefs, which of course were also suppressed by the missionaries, language is virtually synonymous with culture, so that to deprive a people of their language is to virtually destroy their culture.
Of course I am viewing all this from the perspective of a relatively enlightened person of the 21st century. But where was the person who was a bit ahead of his time, or was more humane, and who said, "These are people, they deserve to live, it's wrong to kill them, to try to wipe them out"?
Copyright © 2013.
On the other hand, the Indians (Native Americans) were being treated very badly and even exterminated; and I have never heard that there was even one individual who raised his voice in protest against this.
The treatment of the Indians is a sad, disgusting, tragic, criminal, and extremely long story. The saga could just go on and on.
Just a very few examples: During the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the Cherokees and several other tribes living in the Southeast of the United States were forcibly removed. With no more than the possessions they could carry on their backs they were forced to walk all the way to Oklahoma, even through bad winter weather. Many, especially the oldest and the youngest, died of disease or starvation. (Once they got there, they were told, Oklahoma, or "Indian Territory," would be theirs forever; and that turned out to be just one of innumerable, countless promises to the Indians that turned out to be totally meaningless.)
Similarly, in 1864, the Navajo were also "removed," and made to walk several hundred miles, and for a while were impounded in basically a concentration camp where nearly half of them died. (There is a lasting legacy of this in that all Navajo now alive are descendents of some 2,000 who survived this so-called Long Walk and so are inbred and suffering from diseases that result from the build-up of recessive genes.)
When the Indians were not being made to go on long forced marches like these, they were otherwise being killed by being given smallpox-infected blankets; being shot; having their villages burned and their crops destroyed; or having the buffalo, their source of food and nearly everything else in the case of the Plains Indians, exterminated. Or once on reservations and removed from their hunting grounds and thus no longer able to provide for themselves, they were not receiving food destined for them because of corrupt Indian agents.
Indians who somehow survived all the genocide by shooting and starvation had to undergo having their culture destroyed. Indian children, once in the power of whites—missionaries or teachers in special Indian schools—were forbidden to speak their language. Along with their native religious beliefs, which of course were also suppressed by the missionaries, language is virtually synonymous with culture, so that to deprive a people of their language is to virtually destroy their culture.
Of course I am viewing all this from the perspective of a relatively enlightened person of the 21st century. But where was the person who was a bit ahead of his time, or was more humane, and who said, "These are people, they deserve to live, it's wrong to kill them, to try to wipe them out"?
Copyright © 2013.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Oh, No, Not Another Post about Guns!
I've blogged about guns a number of times, and I've resolved to not write anything further on the subject. I've said it and I don't want to keep saying it. I don't want to get repetitious and tedious, for anyone who is a regular reader of this blog.
However, the shootings keep up, and my thoughts and perspective might keep evolving. So—here I go again.
The problem of the school and mall shootings (and so forth) that we have in the US, very tragically and all too frequently, have two ingredients: the easy availability of guns in this country, plus mentally ill people who are out on the street rather than being confined or institutionalized. This is simple logic and I don't think it can be refuted or denied.
It's mainly the first of these that I've written about a number of times, and I still maintain that the power and influence of the NRA (National Rifle Association), together with loose or broad interpretations of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, seem to stand in the way of our politicians' doing very much about that component of the problem.
As to the second part of the problem, I recently came across some interesting information. President Ronald Reagan instituted policies—funding cuts--that largely emptied our mental hospitals and sent mentally disturbed people out onto the street rather than ensuring that they were either treated or kept confined where they could not cause serious mischief; and evidently we still have the results of those policies with us such that dangerous people are not being treated, and can get a gun with plenty of ammunition and shoot numerous people.
Copyright © 2013.
However, the shootings keep up, and my thoughts and perspective might keep evolving. So—here I go again.
The problem of the school and mall shootings (and so forth) that we have in the US, very tragically and all too frequently, have two ingredients: the easy availability of guns in this country, plus mentally ill people who are out on the street rather than being confined or institutionalized. This is simple logic and I don't think it can be refuted or denied.
It's mainly the first of these that I've written about a number of times, and I still maintain that the power and influence of the NRA (National Rifle Association), together with loose or broad interpretations of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, seem to stand in the way of our politicians' doing very much about that component of the problem.
As to the second part of the problem, I recently came across some interesting information. President Ronald Reagan instituted policies—funding cuts--that largely emptied our mental hospitals and sent mentally disturbed people out onto the street rather than ensuring that they were either treated or kept confined where they could not cause serious mischief; and evidently we still have the results of those policies with us such that dangerous people are not being treated, and can get a gun with plenty of ammunition and shoot numerous people.
Copyright © 2013.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
The Bible and Gay Marriage
Yesterday, a favorable vote in the House of the Illinois legislature meant that Illinois will become the fifteenth state (plus the District of Columbia) to permit same-sex (or "gay") marriage.
I am very happy about this, but it brings to mind the debate, which has occurred many times and took place here recently. That is, some religious folks and conservatives have argued against gay marriage and, at other times and places, other measures to ensure or enhance rights of gay people by pointing to their Bibles.
My personal argument against these people and their point of view on this subject is that we in the United States live in a secular society, not in a theocracy. If it were Muslims who wanted to blur the line between church and state by imposing Islamic sharia law (as have, for example, the Taliban in Afghanistan), there would be a loud outcry. But apparently it matters whose religion is the source of the views and proscriptions that some would like to incorporate into the civil law.
Another example of mine: Jewish people (in the US and of course elsewhere), if they are observant Jews, believe that one should not eat pork. Now suppose that I, as a Jew, argued in the legislature that since I believe that eating pork is a sin (and the Bible—Leviticus—says, I believe, that the eating of pork is an "abomination"), then no one in the US should be permitted by law to eat pork. I'd love to hear the screams and shrieks of those African-American ministers who fought against gay marriage in Illinois when their pork chops are taken away!
And, round about the year 1850, the Bible was pointed to as not only permitting, but positively endorsing, slavery.
A column today by Neil Steinberg in the Chicago Sun-Times had the same idea but he used different examples. He said that if you stone your daughter for speaking disrespectfully toward you, it won't serve you as a defense to point to your Bible. Nor can you perform a sacrifice in your driveway and point to your Bible as permitting it or requiring it. As Steinberg said, "That battle has been lost."
Just as 150 years after the slavery debate our views have changed, and no one would try to defend slavery, maybe in another 10 or 15 decades people will look back to these times and see that it was ridiculous to point to the Bible as justifying the inferior treatment of gay people.
Copyright © 2013.
I am very happy about this, but it brings to mind the debate, which has occurred many times and took place here recently. That is, some religious folks and conservatives have argued against gay marriage and, at other times and places, other measures to ensure or enhance rights of gay people by pointing to their Bibles.
My personal argument against these people and their point of view on this subject is that we in the United States live in a secular society, not in a theocracy. If it were Muslims who wanted to blur the line between church and state by imposing Islamic sharia law (as have, for example, the Taliban in Afghanistan), there would be a loud outcry. But apparently it matters whose religion is the source of the views and proscriptions that some would like to incorporate into the civil law.
Another example of mine: Jewish people (in the US and of course elsewhere), if they are observant Jews, believe that one should not eat pork. Now suppose that I, as a Jew, argued in the legislature that since I believe that eating pork is a sin (and the Bible—Leviticus—says, I believe, that the eating of pork is an "abomination"), then no one in the US should be permitted by law to eat pork. I'd love to hear the screams and shrieks of those African-American ministers who fought against gay marriage in Illinois when their pork chops are taken away!
And, round about the year 1850, the Bible was pointed to as not only permitting, but positively endorsing, slavery.
A column today by Neil Steinberg in the Chicago Sun-Times had the same idea but he used different examples. He said that if you stone your daughter for speaking disrespectfully toward you, it won't serve you as a defense to point to your Bible. Nor can you perform a sacrifice in your driveway and point to your Bible as permitting it or requiring it. As Steinberg said, "That battle has been lost."
Just as 150 years after the slavery debate our views have changed, and no one would try to defend slavery, maybe in another 10 or 15 decades people will look back to these times and see that it was ridiculous to point to the Bible as justifying the inferior treatment of gay people.
Copyright © 2013.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Humans' Encounter with Space Aliens
A recent article on Huffington Post said, in its headline, that an expert has said that the world should prepare for encounters with other-world aliens.
Although the article, and the comment it was reporting, focused on the prospect that Mankind will encounter other intelligent beings as Man voyages further and further out into space, we've been largely conditioned (by sci-fi movies) to think in terms of aliens landing on earth in their "flying saucers."
I don't want to weigh in on the likelihood that aliens are going to land on earth—let alone the question of whether they have already done so. But I do want to speculate a bit on what an alien "encounter" might be like.
First, I fear that Mankind's first reaction might well be to let loose the military or the police and those first aliens—even if coming in peace—might well be killed by us.
Second, thought should be given to how we are going to communicate. In the movies, the aliens speak English and say, "We have learned your language by monitoring your radio and television broadcasts." Well, I don't think we ought to count on that; and the issue of how we might communicate is not an easy or obvious question.
Next, I've amused myself by thinking about how aliens might differ from us. Entirely apart from how aliens might differ from us in physical appearance (and there's no reason to think they're going to have two eyes, one nose, one mouth, two arms and two legs, etc.), how about if their minds are very different from ours? Maybe they will be beings who are incapable of lying and will have no comprehension of what lying is or of how and why we can and do lie.
Last, suppose they are creatures who never make mistakes. They might say to us, "Well, if you intended to do [such-and-such], why did you not do that? Why did you do something else?"
Copyright © 2013.
Although the article, and the comment it was reporting, focused on the prospect that Mankind will encounter other intelligent beings as Man voyages further and further out into space, we've been largely conditioned (by sci-fi movies) to think in terms of aliens landing on earth in their "flying saucers."
I don't want to weigh in on the likelihood that aliens are going to land on earth—let alone the question of whether they have already done so. But I do want to speculate a bit on what an alien "encounter" might be like.
First, I fear that Mankind's first reaction might well be to let loose the military or the police and those first aliens—even if coming in peace—might well be killed by us.
Second, thought should be given to how we are going to communicate. In the movies, the aliens speak English and say, "We have learned your language by monitoring your radio and television broadcasts." Well, I don't think we ought to count on that; and the issue of how we might communicate is not an easy or obvious question.
Next, I've amused myself by thinking about how aliens might differ from us. Entirely apart from how aliens might differ from us in physical appearance (and there's no reason to think they're going to have two eyes, one nose, one mouth, two arms and two legs, etc.), how about if their minds are very different from ours? Maybe they will be beings who are incapable of lying and will have no comprehension of what lying is or of how and why we can and do lie.
Last, suppose they are creatures who never make mistakes. They might say to us, "Well, if you intended to do [such-and-such], why did you not do that? Why did you do something else?"
Copyright © 2013.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
How the US Government Could Save Money--and Save You on Your Taxes
Conservatives don't want to pay taxes that fund social-welfare programs. I know this because I have heard at least a few individuals say that to me, face-to-face.
They say that money is taken from them in the form of taxes and given to people who don't want to work. (At heart this idea is racist: They are really talking about African-Americans and the sentiment relies on the old racist canard that African-Americans don't want to work--never mind pointing out to them that huge numbers of job applicants have turned out, with lines going around the block, when there has been a widely announced hiring event in their communities, as shown in photos and video clips.
I will tell you, them, whomever—where tax dollars are really going to waste.
For one thing, the United States sends billions of dollars to the government of Afghanistan; and in turn, in the course of just one year, a billion dollars of Afghan aid was "lost to corruption." For another thing, Afghan President Karzai is an opportunist who has given power—and immunity from prosecution—to men who in another time and place would be counted as war criminals.
Much as I might support the aspirations of women in Afghanistan to have those rights which Taliban rule in Afghanistan would deny them, I see a relic of the cold war here: The United States got involved in Afghanistan after the country was wrecked and ruined by civil wars, fighting between war lords and factions that followed the withdrawal of the Soviets. (To remember our history: In Vietnam, the French lost and pulled out and America thought it could do better, but could not and lost also. Similarly, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan and apparently the US felt it could do better, and the final results of that may not be in but it does not look optimistic.)
So, I have to suspect that US efforts in Afghanistan have been a waste of your and my tax dollars. And here is another one: Businesses like Walmart, and fast-food companies like McDonald's who pay their workers inadequate wages.
These companies are allowed to pay their workers a minimum wage which has not gone up, in real dollars (or even in nominal dollars) for decades.
A Walmart worker who is single earns a wage which puts her at about the poverty level. If a Walmart, or McDonald's, worker earns minimum wage but supports a family of four on his or her income, that worker's income is supplemented by aid from the government which costs us an average of about $1700 for that family. So, what Walmart or McDonald's does not pay the worker, you and I pay.
Walmart is making huge profits. Basically every American taxpayer, by having to add to the insufficient income that the Walmart or McDonald's worker receives from her employer, is paying his taxes ultimately into the pockets of the owners of Walmart and McDonald's. It would save us, the middle-class Americans who pay taxes, money if those companies were compelled to pay a living wage.
Copyright © 2013.
They say that money is taken from them in the form of taxes and given to people who don't want to work. (At heart this idea is racist: They are really talking about African-Americans and the sentiment relies on the old racist canard that African-Americans don't want to work--never mind pointing out to them that huge numbers of job applicants have turned out, with lines going around the block, when there has been a widely announced hiring event in their communities, as shown in photos and video clips.
I will tell you, them, whomever—where tax dollars are really going to waste.
For one thing, the United States sends billions of dollars to the government of Afghanistan; and in turn, in the course of just one year, a billion dollars of Afghan aid was "lost to corruption." For another thing, Afghan President Karzai is an opportunist who has given power—and immunity from prosecution—to men who in another time and place would be counted as war criminals.
Much as I might support the aspirations of women in Afghanistan to have those rights which Taliban rule in Afghanistan would deny them, I see a relic of the cold war here: The United States got involved in Afghanistan after the country was wrecked and ruined by civil wars, fighting between war lords and factions that followed the withdrawal of the Soviets. (To remember our history: In Vietnam, the French lost and pulled out and America thought it could do better, but could not and lost also. Similarly, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan and apparently the US felt it could do better, and the final results of that may not be in but it does not look optimistic.)
So, I have to suspect that US efforts in Afghanistan have been a waste of your and my tax dollars. And here is another one: Businesses like Walmart, and fast-food companies like McDonald's who pay their workers inadequate wages.
These companies are allowed to pay their workers a minimum wage which has not gone up, in real dollars (or even in nominal dollars) for decades.
A Walmart worker who is single earns a wage which puts her at about the poverty level. If a Walmart, or McDonald's, worker earns minimum wage but supports a family of four on his or her income, that worker's income is supplemented by aid from the government which costs us an average of about $1700 for that family. So, what Walmart or McDonald's does not pay the worker, you and I pay.
Walmart is making huge profits. Basically every American taxpayer, by having to add to the insufficient income that the Walmart or McDonald's worker receives from her employer, is paying his taxes ultimately into the pockets of the owners of Walmart and McDonald's. It would save us, the middle-class Americans who pay taxes, money if those companies were compelled to pay a living wage.
Copyright © 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
