There is no statute of limitations on morality --Pug Mahoney
Boys will be boys, it is often said, to explain naughty behavior by teenagers. And while it may be true that the expression explains their behavior, it does not necessarily excuse it.
To use that as an excuse for bad behavior is at best immoral and at worst it enables those with poor self-control to continue abusing others.
Such behavior is especially unacceptable when perpetrated by those who claim to follow the precepts of a prominent religious organization.
But then again, morality has little to do with religion. Churches may teach morality, along with their version of spirituality, but the two are different.
Spirituality is a person's relationship with a Higher Power, whatever you construe that Higher Power to be. Morality deals with your relationships and attitudes toward other people.
However, this raises the question of whether there is a universal moral code, or does it vary among cultures, just as religion and spirituality vary?
One very popular moral code stipulates that you should not kill. But many followers of this moral code often deem it acceptable to kill others, especially those of a different culture.
Suppose that a ban on killing other people is part of a universal moral code. How, then, to explain why some cultures and those of a particular religious belief system, encourage followers to kill non-believers?
So is this morality or politics? Or neither? Or is this what happens when morality and politics mix, and are rationalized by religion?
When people mix politics and religion, with the approval of their spiritual leaders, morality is forgotten and all kinds of nasty things happen.
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Friday, August 31, 2018
Cliches Come a-Cropper
A single day of listening to cable TV news yielded the following crop of cliches, mixed metaphors and nonsense phrasings:
Yeah, well, um, y'know, at the end of the day, when we look at the situation as a whole, we really only see the tip of the iceberg, so we need to step back and remember that the proof is in the pudding, and it's time to put our ducks in a row, stand up and be counted and avoid the tipping point that leads to a bunker mentality.
The fact of the matter is that we're in a different ball game, and we have a window of opportunity to look for the smoking gun that will point to a tectonic shift.
It's an existential threat, to say the least, so we must follow the bouncing ball in a multiple carom shot and let the chips fall where they may.
Meanwhile, they've got him over a barrel as the witch hunt continues to bear fruit.
Editor's note: If you must use a cliche, at least get it right. The proof of any pudding is in the eating, not in the pudding itself. A bouncing ball in a multiple carom shot mixes two unrelated techniques; a video guiding a singalong with a billiards maneuver. And witch hunts can never produce apples or any other fruit.
Modern geology has given us the phrase "tectonic shift," which refers to plates which make up the earth's surface touch each other (tectonic) and over time increased pressure causes them to move. Result: An earthquake. So a tectonic shift is a major event, but not every change in politics and society rises to that level of importance.
Finally, how is an "existential threat" different from any other kind of threat? Is it because it threatens the very existence of someone or something?
Metaphors are useful phrases, but excess use deprives them of any value they might have once had in conveying information. They then become cliches.
Yeah, well, um, y'know, at the end of the day, when we look at the situation as a whole, we really only see the tip of the iceberg, so we need to step back and remember that the proof is in the pudding, and it's time to put our ducks in a row, stand up and be counted and avoid the tipping point that leads to a bunker mentality.
The fact of the matter is that we're in a different ball game, and we have a window of opportunity to look for the smoking gun that will point to a tectonic shift.
It's an existential threat, to say the least, so we must follow the bouncing ball in a multiple carom shot and let the chips fall where they may.
Meanwhile, they've got him over a barrel as the witch hunt continues to bear fruit.
Editor's note: If you must use a cliche, at least get it right. The proof of any pudding is in the eating, not in the pudding itself. A bouncing ball in a multiple carom shot mixes two unrelated techniques; a video guiding a singalong with a billiards maneuver. And witch hunts can never produce apples or any other fruit.
Modern geology has given us the phrase "tectonic shift," which refers to plates which make up the earth's surface touch each other (tectonic) and over time increased pressure causes them to move. Result: An earthquake. So a tectonic shift is a major event, but not every change in politics and society rises to that level of importance.
Finally, how is an "existential threat" different from any other kind of threat? Is it because it threatens the very existence of someone or something?
Metaphors are useful phrases, but excess use deprives them of any value they might have once had in conveying information. They then become cliches.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Full of Snit
Body language can be a very revealing form of communication, especially when the communicator is angry or defiant about something and has not learned the technique and strategy of concealing his true feelings. This is a tactic that politicians, especially, adopt early in their careers.
Sometimes, however, a candidate succeeds because his base of support wants someone who shows anger, defiance and strong opposition to perceived wrongness and is willing to lead the country in a new direction.
In this situation, the candidate may tap into this perceived ocean of anger and repeatedly display his anger, both in speech and appearance.
The supporting voters may well be in a snit themselves, and eagerly follow a leader who is really full of snit, and who regularly displays it by showing his snit face.
Sometimes, however, a candidate succeeds because his base of support wants someone who shows anger, defiance and strong opposition to perceived wrongness and is willing to lead the country in a new direction.
In this situation, the candidate may tap into this perceived ocean of anger and repeatedly display his anger, both in speech and appearance.
The supporting voters may well be in a snit themselves, and eagerly follow a leader who is really full of snit, and who regularly displays it by showing his snit face.
Saturday, August 25, 2018
Language and Logic
Logic uses language, but language itself is not logical.
Pronunciation and spelling vary by region and social level, and the only thing that gives one dialect more prestige than another is the prestige of its speakers.
In that context, "dialect" has acquired some negativity, leading speakers of the prestige group to insist that their speech is "correct," while others are dismissed as "only a dialect."
That said, however, there is a standardized system of spelling, punctuation, grammar and speaking which has acquired the label of "preferred." The advantage of a standard dialect is that it enables those of various other speech and reading patterns to understand each other. This is not to say that the so-called "standard" dialect is inherently better, but only that it facilitates communication.
Dialects, in both spelling and speech patterns, vary by region as well as social groups. Along the East Coast of America, for example, and even with some major cities, there are many variations. People in the Boston area are identifiable by their speech patterns, as are people in New York City, Philadelphia, Virginia, Alabama and Mississippi. Yet they all use a standard system of spelling, even as pronunciation varies so much as to make communication difficult between a Brooklyn cab driver and an Alabama farmer.
Meanwhile, those who seek careers in broadcasting, show business or politics often abandon their native dialects in favor of what has become a "standard." However, they remain capable of return to their "home" dialect when needed. This is especially true of politicians, who may speak one way in the halls of Congress, but quite another when stumping for re-election back home.
Every trade or profession has its own set of words, phrases and pronunciations to set it apart from others, as well as to keep out non-members of the self-imposed inner circle.
This is known as jargon.
Some of the so-called higher professions, such as law and medicine, use a Latin-based vocabulary as their jargon. This is another way of adding even more prestige to themselves and their professions, while keeping out others. In addition, it gives them the opportunity of translating the academic jargon into plainer language, as if they were doing their clients a favor.
Journalists, meanwhile, have a habit of translating the polysyllabic Latin and Greek-based legal and medical terms into plainer, single syllable Anglo-Saxon based English terms for faster, easier understanding by readers.
May it always be so.
In fairness, however, it must be acknowledged that using Latin and Greek terms, especially in medicine, enables health care professionals in different countries with different languages to have a common set of terms.
But that means it's really just another jargon, albeit one with more prestige. And there's no logic to that. It just is.
Pronunciation and spelling vary by region and social level, and the only thing that gives one dialect more prestige than another is the prestige of its speakers.
In that context, "dialect" has acquired some negativity, leading speakers of the prestige group to insist that their speech is "correct," while others are dismissed as "only a dialect."
That said, however, there is a standardized system of spelling, punctuation, grammar and speaking which has acquired the label of "preferred." The advantage of a standard dialect is that it enables those of various other speech and reading patterns to understand each other. This is not to say that the so-called "standard" dialect is inherently better, but only that it facilitates communication.
Dialects, in both spelling and speech patterns, vary by region as well as social groups. Along the East Coast of America, for example, and even with some major cities, there are many variations. People in the Boston area are identifiable by their speech patterns, as are people in New York City, Philadelphia, Virginia, Alabama and Mississippi. Yet they all use a standard system of spelling, even as pronunciation varies so much as to make communication difficult between a Brooklyn cab driver and an Alabama farmer.
Meanwhile, those who seek careers in broadcasting, show business or politics often abandon their native dialects in favor of what has become a "standard." However, they remain capable of return to their "home" dialect when needed. This is especially true of politicians, who may speak one way in the halls of Congress, but quite another when stumping for re-election back home.
Every trade or profession has its own set of words, phrases and pronunciations to set it apart from others, as well as to keep out non-members of the self-imposed inner circle.
This is known as jargon.
Some of the so-called higher professions, such as law and medicine, use a Latin-based vocabulary as their jargon. This is another way of adding even more prestige to themselves and their professions, while keeping out others. In addition, it gives them the opportunity of translating the academic jargon into plainer language, as if they were doing their clients a favor.
Journalists, meanwhile, have a habit of translating the polysyllabic Latin and Greek-based legal and medical terms into plainer, single syllable Anglo-Saxon based English terms for faster, easier understanding by readers.
May it always be so.
In fairness, however, it must be acknowledged that using Latin and Greek terms, especially in medicine, enables health care professionals in different countries with different languages to have a common set of terms.
But that means it's really just another jargon, albeit one with more prestige. And there's no logic to that. It just is.
Thursday, August 23, 2018
Impeach or Indict
Can a federal official be indicted while in office, or must he or she be impeached first?
Spiro Agnew, vice president under Richard Nixon, argued that he could not be indicted while in office, but that any potential charges should be held until after impeachment and removal from office, or until after his term of office expires.
Solicitor General Robert Bork disagreed, so Agnew resigned as vice president and pleaded no contest to the charges filed against him.
Federal judges and members of Congress have been indicted while in office, so why not the president?
Justice Department policy has been that the agency does not try to indict a sitting president. That, however, only means that they don't. It doesn't mean they can't.
In recent days, the discussion has been raging in print and on TV talk shows as to whether Donald Trump should be indicted on a variety of allegations made against him, or whether the Department of Justice should wait until after he leaves office.
That argument did not work for Spiro Agnew as vice president, so why should it work for Trump?
As for Nixon, who resigned rather than face certain impeachment, his successor Gerald Ford issued a pardon soon after Nixon left, so the issue became moot -- even before any criminal charges were filed against Nixon.
Meanwhile, the evidence is piling up that Trump was indeed involved in various activities that violated several laws, increasing the odds that he could well be impeached, and that criminal charges could be filed against him even as he occupies the office of the presidency.
Now the question is whether an indictment should be sought now, or should legal officials wait until he is ousted through impeachment, resigns or leaves office after his term expires.
Lawyers argue the constitutionality of whether a sitting president can be indicted. Some say yes, others say no. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is holding to its policy that they won't try.
It is clear, however, that many other federal officials have been indicted, tried and convicted of criminal or civil offenses while they were in office.
Up to and including the vice president. So is the president above the law?
Spiro Agnew, vice president under Richard Nixon, argued that he could not be indicted while in office, but that any potential charges should be held until after impeachment and removal from office, or until after his term of office expires.
Solicitor General Robert Bork disagreed, so Agnew resigned as vice president and pleaded no contest to the charges filed against him.
Federal judges and members of Congress have been indicted while in office, so why not the president?
Justice Department policy has been that the agency does not try to indict a sitting president. That, however, only means that they don't. It doesn't mean they can't.
In recent days, the discussion has been raging in print and on TV talk shows as to whether Donald Trump should be indicted on a variety of allegations made against him, or whether the Department of Justice should wait until after he leaves office.
That argument did not work for Spiro Agnew as vice president, so why should it work for Trump?
As for Nixon, who resigned rather than face certain impeachment, his successor Gerald Ford issued a pardon soon after Nixon left, so the issue became moot -- even before any criminal charges were filed against Nixon.
Meanwhile, the evidence is piling up that Trump was indeed involved in various activities that violated several laws, increasing the odds that he could well be impeached, and that criminal charges could be filed against him even as he occupies the office of the presidency.
Now the question is whether an indictment should be sought now, or should legal officials wait until he is ousted through impeachment, resigns or leaves office after his term expires.
Lawyers argue the constitutionality of whether a sitting president can be indicted. Some say yes, others say no. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is holding to its policy that they won't try.
It is clear, however, that many other federal officials have been indicted, tried and convicted of criminal or civil offenses while they were in office.
Up to and including the vice president. So is the president above the law?
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Gender Jingoism
Jingoism is defined as an attitude of extreme, belligerent patriotism, and is similar to the word chauvinism, which began in France and was named after Nicolas Chauvin, a Napoleonic veteran famous for his dislike of all things non-French.
More recently, those who focused on what they perceived as the innate superiority of men became known as male chauvinists.
These days, there remains a tendency to refer to women by their first names and to men by their last names.
One wonders why that is.
Is it because women are more friendly and outgoing than men, and less concerned with status?
Or is it because women feel the need to preserve some privacy, making it more difficult for men to find them?
Or is it that some men feel superior, and use whatever tactics they can to reinforce that?
In turn, of course, the last two reasons indicate something about men and their need to control others, which is also a reason why men are more likely to participate in extremely competitive sports. And politics, too, for that matter.
Times are changing, however, as more women take part in sports and politics. That could also explain the antipathy many men in politics feel toward women who dare to challenge them.
For a long time, women were relegated to secondary status, and in some societies throughout the world still are. Even in America, there is a pattern of referring to women by their first names and to men by the more formal use of titles and their family names.
One hears this often on political debate stages and, unfortunately, on news programs. A particularly notable example was during the presidential debates in 2016, when the Republican candidate was referred to as Mr. Trump, and the Democratic candidate only by her first name, Hillary, and not by the comparable term Mrs. Clinton.
And currently, a critic of the Oval Office is referred to only by her first name, Omarosa, and not by her full name -- Omarosa Manigault Newman.
Thee was a time in America when newspapers would refer to white men with an honorific title such as "Mister Jones," but members of minority groups by their first names only.
Those days are gone. But in an era of equal rights and responsibilities, perhaps it's time this change accelerated.
More recently, those who focused on what they perceived as the innate superiority of men became known as male chauvinists.
These days, there remains a tendency to refer to women by their first names and to men by their last names.
One wonders why that is.
Is it because women are more friendly and outgoing than men, and less concerned with status?
Or is it because women feel the need to preserve some privacy, making it more difficult for men to find them?
Or is it that some men feel superior, and use whatever tactics they can to reinforce that?
In turn, of course, the last two reasons indicate something about men and their need to control others, which is also a reason why men are more likely to participate in extremely competitive sports. And politics, too, for that matter.
Times are changing, however, as more women take part in sports and politics. That could also explain the antipathy many men in politics feel toward women who dare to challenge them.
For a long time, women were relegated to secondary status, and in some societies throughout the world still are. Even in America, there is a pattern of referring to women by their first names and to men by the more formal use of titles and their family names.
One hears this often on political debate stages and, unfortunately, on news programs. A particularly notable example was during the presidential debates in 2016, when the Republican candidate was referred to as Mr. Trump, and the Democratic candidate only by her first name, Hillary, and not by the comparable term Mrs. Clinton.
And currently, a critic of the Oval Office is referred to only by her first name, Omarosa, and not by her full name -- Omarosa Manigault Newman.
Thee was a time in America when newspapers would refer to white men with an honorific title such as "Mister Jones," but members of minority groups by their first names only.
Those days are gone. But in an era of equal rights and responsibilities, perhaps it's time this change accelerated.
Monday, August 20, 2018
Truth and Opinion
"Just the facts, Ma'am." -- Det. Sgt. Joe Friday in the TV series "Dragnet."
News programs have been going bonkers over Rudy Giuliani's comment that "Truth isn't truth."
For a moment, let's give him a break and consider that what he meant was that an opinion on what something means doesn't agree with what someone else may think it means. He may have been using the terms "truth" and "opinion" interchangeably.
In that scenario, you may choose an alternative set of facts and use them to justify or support a conclusion that you prefer, rather than someone else's conclusion.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys do this regularly, and it's up to a jury to decide which side has the better argument.
Truth is not debatable. What a particular truth means, however, can be and often is debated by lawyers and politicians long after the sun goes down. But at the end of the day, truth is that which conforms to fact or reality, and is not debatable.
Opinion is a conclusion as to what a certain set of facts may mean and how they will affect the world. This enables some to select alternative facts to bolster their preconceived notion of what should be or what they prefer to be.
Others may choose a different set of facts to support an opposing position.
Ideally, both sides should look at all the facts and reach a compromise on what would be the best way to make use of all the information available to best serve society.
All along, however, "truth" is that which conforms to fact or reality.
News programs have been going bonkers over Rudy Giuliani's comment that "Truth isn't truth."
For a moment, let's give him a break and consider that what he meant was that an opinion on what something means doesn't agree with what someone else may think it means. He may have been using the terms "truth" and "opinion" interchangeably.
In that scenario, you may choose an alternative set of facts and use them to justify or support a conclusion that you prefer, rather than someone else's conclusion.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys do this regularly, and it's up to a jury to decide which side has the better argument.
Truth is not debatable. What a particular truth means, however, can be and often is debated by lawyers and politicians long after the sun goes down. But at the end of the day, truth is that which conforms to fact or reality, and is not debatable.
Opinion is a conclusion as to what a certain set of facts may mean and how they will affect the world. This enables some to select alternative facts to bolster their preconceived notion of what should be or what they prefer to be.
Others may choose a different set of facts to support an opposing position.
Ideally, both sides should look at all the facts and reach a compromise on what would be the best way to make use of all the information available to best serve society.
All along, however, "truth" is that which conforms to fact or reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)