The Rachel Dolezal Phenomenon

Daryl Kane

Last week droves of progressives stood up and applauded as Bruce Jenner heroically embraced her “true” identity as Caitlyn.  This week however, the same do-gooders find themselves doing a bit of soul searching as they feel inexplicably ambivalent towards Rachel Dolezal.  If they accept the notion that gender is a social construct, an illusion, why don’t they feel the same way about ethnicity?  Are they, too, guilty of prejudice?  In their efforts to abolish the constant barrage of bigotry that is western civilization, had they neglected to fully cleanse it from themselves?  For those of you asking yourselves this question, don’t worry.  Remove the belt from around your neck and slowly step down from your chair. Take a deep breath and repeat after me.  It’s not your fault.  It’s not your fault. 

The reason why you felt compelled to cheer for Jenner but not Rachel Dolezal is actually quite simple.  It’s because you hadn’t been told to yet.

When Rachel Dolezal began her transracial journey she made one tragic mistake.  She didn’t allow the Left to tell everyone how heroic she was first.   You see, “Caitlyn” Jenner had the luxury of emerging on stage after Americans had already been thoroughly “educated” about the wonders of transgenderism.  Their professors at P.C. University had already enlightened college students about the age-old historical struggle between a community created a few decades ago and the forces of reactionary, patriarchal evil.  This lesson had been reinforced by the charming depictions of the transgendered hero that graced our televisions and the snide put-downs of anyone who dared oppose their struggle for liberation.  And ultimately, even if you lived under a rock or managed to navigate around your college indoctrination, activist judges made it clear.  Transgenderism and the surgical mutilation of one’s reproductive organs is not only perfectly normal, it’s actually quite heroic.  Besides, isn’t it covered under Obamacare?

For those of you still with me the lesson is clear.  Don’t wait for the loony Left to tell another generation what is and is not “normal.”  The antidote to the absurdity of political correctness is a hearty dose of common sense.  The Left is fully aware of this fact which is why they’ve put so much effort into bullying us away from cultural issues.  Meanwhile, as we timidly retreat, the Left defines the rules and boundaries of the conversation in such a manner that by the time it begins we have already been disqualified.  Those of us who still rely on rational thought must not only make our voices heard during the debate but must also insist on having a say in defining the narrative.

The Left will argue that parallels between Jenner and Dolezal are faulty because Jenner announced his/her trans identity openly, while Dolezal appears to be using it as a defense after being caught in lie. 

This is not altogether untrue, but even if this narrative survives they will not be able to avoid answering the simple question: Does transethnicity exist? 

As is often the case with politically correct assertions, there is no answer to that question that doesn’t lead to a paradox.  If the answer is Yes and if ethnicity truly is yet another “social construct,” why are campuses so obsessed with determining the ethnicity of their applicants?  If the answer is No, how can you accept the notion of transgenderism when society began its horrific habit of classifying its members as male or female long before it began classifying them as black or white? 

Traditionally the Left’s response to the numerous paradoxes created by politically correct orthodoxy has been to provide no answer.   That is to say, they have relied on their unilateral control over the portals of public discourse (mainstream media, academia, the entertainment industry, etc.) to swiftly eliminate any such questioning before anyone gets a chance to even think about it.

The purveyors of political correctness have created a strange world where things like gender and ethnicity are fluid or imagined and the only constants are racism, sexism and white-male privilege.  It’s a world where the deranged are given free rein to project their delusions on the masses and those that don’t pretend to see it are the ones diagnosed with phobias.  They’ve had a great deal of success growing this world, so much so that a majority of Americans twice elected a proud proponent of it.  There is however one fatal flaw in the design of their world.  It is built on ideas and premises that have no basis in reality and are diametrically opposed to natural law, logic and reason.  That’s why a seemingly minor and trivial story like Rachel Dolezal can prove to be so powerful—because political correctness is a bubble of hot air that depends upon a massive defense apparatus for survival.  A massive, tax payer funded machine that aims to pulverize any and all obstacles, be it a politician, business or private citizen.  For the most part the Left has done an impeccable job protecting the masses from dissenting views and free speech, but inevitably something was bound to slip through.

Rachel Dolezal not only happened, America knows it happened, and for the first time in a long time they are seeing political correctness for exactly what it is: A whole lot of nonsense.

#  #  #

What is Political Correctness?

Daryl Kane

Recently comedian Jerry Seinfeld made headlines by stating that he avoids doing shows on college campuses due to political correctness.  This sentiment, which has been expressed by numerous other high profile comedians (Chris Rock, Louis C.K. etc.), has stirred up a moderate level of discussion.  Conservatives, being quite familiar with the experience of being silenced by political correctness, have rallied behind Seinfeld while progressive syndicates have done the opposite.     

Now that the issue is front and center the time is right to address a question that has been bothering me for many years: Just what is political correctness?

If you ask the average, reasonably informed citizen to define political correctness most would describe it as a mindset of hyper-sensitivity to the feelings of others, particularly regarding ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation.  This assessment has some truth to it but it misses a very big point. 

Let’s look at religion as an example.  Political correctness informs us that we must be sensitive to Islam and its relationship to terrorism.  This courtesy however, is not extended to Christianity.  Whereas political correctness comes to the defense of Islam when its followers commit terrible atrocities, it searches for opportunities to condemn Christians as bigots.  This bizarre contradiction is odd, but far from unique.  Across the board when one looks at the various ways in which people can be categorized we can draw a clear distinction between groups promoted by PC values and those demonized by them.

The common denominator to be found amongst groups benefiting from political correctness is that they are groups not traditionally associated with American power.  Be it women in the workplace, minorities from non-European countries, or people engaging in alternative sexual lifestyles, political correctness advocates expanding the influence and collective voice of these groups.  Political correctness is a forced selection choosing that which is alien or new to America over that which is traditional.  This is not to say, as Seinfeld would say, that there is “anything wrong” with these groups.  It is merely an acknowledgement that political correctness actively discriminates against what is traditionally perceived as American. 

Political correctness becomes laughable when confronted by its absurdity.  But the laughter quickly fades when one contemplates the degree to which Western life is influenced by political correctness.  Not only are the PC sensibilities promoted on all levels of popular culture, but it has taken unilateral control of public education.  So much so that one could easily argue that the primary focus has shifted from educating students in math and science to indoctrinating them into a particular ideology.  So much so that Jerry Seinfeld does not feel comfortable performing on public campuses.

Identity politics is not the only issue covered by political correctness.  Political correctness also speaks to foreign policy and national security.  Whether the issue is ISIS or having secure national boarders, the American liberal can usually be found defending those who are undermining America.  At the very least, they occupy the part of the discussion least interested in defending America.  For this reason it could easily be argued that political correctness as a collective force represents the single greatest threat to America.  Because political correctness simultaneously coalesces and amplifies all of the threats that we face.
 

            There is a name for political movements that spread their ideas by converting public institutions into political weapons: “Fascism.”  When it is not “politically correct” for a nation to treat the groups that built it fairly, or to defend itself from outside threats, it becomes imperative that citizens begin to seriously question the “politics” of the day.

# # #

Evil Empire? Of ISIS, America, Rome, and the Pax Americana

Mark Charalambous

Geraldo Rivera has given the best reason for direct US military intervention in ISIS: “Revenge.”

Speaking on Fox News’ The Five on June 9, he clarified: “For taking the heads of Americans.”

Such candor may repel a lot of people.  But if we widen the lens focus to analyze the emerging new global reality of our position in the region... and beyond, Geraldo’s argument emerges as the correct one to make.

Allow me to explain why Geraldo’s seemingly crude, reckless notion bears merit.

The counter-arguments go like this.

• This is our fault for invading Iraq in 2003 under a pretext.
• We committed numerous wartime atrocities during the Iraq War, culminating with a civilian casualty count recently measured as 150,000 out of a grand total of 500,000 Iraqi deaths.
• The Islamic uprising is one of epic nationalism and religious fervor justified by a people that have suffered under the yoke of western dominance since WWI. Starting with the colonialist arbitrary dissections of the Middle East after the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the region has endured repeated interventions, political, economic, as well as military, by the United States. Such as overthrowing governments by CIA skullduggery (installing the Shah of Iran after overthrowing an elected government) or just flagrant “regime change” by brute force as we did in the Iraq War.

And then there’s always the forced dislocation of the Palestinians to make way for the creation of the state of Israel following WWII.

Indeed, there is no shortage of reasons to justify the Al-Qaeda-cum-ISIS-cum-Caliphate “blowback” that has jolted not just us, but the entire civilized world.

So how then can we argue—morally? —for a military response, justified by a need for... revenge? 

There are plenty of arguments to be made by our enemies that we, indeed, are the “Evil Empire.”

Good luck trying to deny it to the man tortured at Abu Ghraib by the decadent US Army forces, particularly the sexual humiliation at the hands of female soldiers.

So, are we the “Evil Empire?”

No, we are not. Despite the atrocities. No more than ancient Rome was an “evil empire.”

Like ancient Rome, we are the superpower of our day. Like Rome, we are hated by many people outside of our borders—both in enemy nations in the Middle East and within many of our ally nations... in fact, by many American citizens right here at home.

We are constantly reminded of this thanks to the generosity of our First Amendment rights of free speech.

American America-haters. Reverend Wright, Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky. Hollywood. Chances are, your college humanities or social science professor. Michelle Obama even (“For the first time in my adult lifetime I am proud of my country.”). Our President, Barack Obama, many claim, is another anti-American. (A truly scary thought...)

People hate us for many reasons. One: they are not us. They do not enjoy the wealth, freedom and privileges we have, especially when it comes to some extent at the expense of the exploitation of non-Americans. This, in a word, is jealousy. Everyone hates the boss.

Two: they have direct experience of harm resulting from our actions. You cannot fault someone for hating us if their child was killed, unintentionally or not, by a drone attack at a wedding celebration.

We can all agree that it should be the norm, not the exception, that bad players acting on our behalf are held accountable when they commit... evil acts. (Let’s call them what they are...) One of our strengths is that occasionally when something like that happens the guilty parties are held accountable. If so, it’s a result of one of the many things that make us not an evil empire, but a great empire. We are a nation of laws. 

Nations, cultures, civilizations are measured not just by their monuments, but also by their ideals ...their cultural mythologies. What a people believe about themselves can be more revealing than their tangible accomplishments. Our mythology is of a nation founded on principles of personal freedom, liberty and self-governance. We have high ideals. Opportunity. Responsibility. Charity. Inclusion. The “melting pot.” We have had high aspirations; and we have tremendous achievements to our credit.

Back to the United States / Rome analogy.

In the centuries of Rome’s dominion of over much of their known world, they committed atrocities to create and hold their empire. Rest assured, the conquest of Gaul by the great Julius Caesar was not accomplished without ruthless massacres and war crimes, despite the wonderful whitewashing in his canonical Latin text, the Gallic Wars.

But we have the hindsight of history to judge Rome. Two thousand-plus years of it, in fact. If Rome was an “evil empire,” would civilization as we know it been better off if it had never existed?

Of course not. The Roman Empire contributed so much to the advancement of the human potential and civilization that we cannot imagine the world as we know it without it. Perhaps first and foremost, it midwifed the glorious culture of ancient Greece for posterity.

The analogies between Rome and the U.S. are well excavated by historians. Like the Romans, we brought forward the great civilization that preceded us: Europe. Like the Romans, we in a sense perfected and capitalized on it. Thanks to the genius of the Founding Fathers who were well-schooled in their history, we codified the best system of government ever. And largely as a result of our Constitution, gave rise to the greatest machine for scientific, technological and economic achievement the world has ever known. The Roman Republic/Empire had endured for half a millennium before the Pax Romana established a period of peace and prosperity for the Romans and all those who wisely chose to accept their terms: “Be our friend, friend to our friends, and enemy of our enemies.”

Other than it took us less than half the time, are we much different from the Romans?

There is one last comparison between us and our ancient role-model. And this one is just as important.

As we look to this new “Caliphate” that has to date conquered half of Syria and Iraq and is growing daily by the influx of volunteer converts flock there from around the world like hippies to San Francisco in the Summer of Love, we are struck dumbfounded as we witness their atrocities in the name of their religion.

Islam is the very definition of intolerance. Try asking a Muslim scholar if it is true that his religion prescribes the death penalty for someone choosing to leave it. One thing I will tell you:  you will not get a one-word answer, as in “Yes, “ or “no.”

How do we compare with the Romans in terms of religious tolerance? Speaking of pre-Christian Rome, we are in an important respect quite similar.

The Romans were politically astute. They recognized, for instance, that to preserve their empire it was sometimes necessary to have nations at their borders quarreling with one another. Instability between neighbors at the periphery served to keep them too busy to cause trouble. Those pragmatic Romans...

Similarly with their religious policies. They recognized that religion was something that humans do. It is clearly a necessity for human beings to have some explanation for what lies beyond... in Hamlet’s “undiscovered country.”

The Romans knew that when attempting to absorb a people into their “sphere of influence,” obliterating their customs, traditions, or especially their religion, would not make things easier. The Romans assimilated. They assimilated the religious beliefs, and gods, of these aliens into their own pantheon.  The Romans may have been obsessively superstitious, but they were pragmatic...

And this is how the Christian world, after surviving its own era of intolerance, persecution—and let’s be honest, atrocities—evolved in the west to tolerate other belief systems. No, Christianity did not directly assimilate foreign religious beliefs into its catechism (though it is not a coincidence that Christmas falls on the date of the Roman holiday Saturnalia, not on the supposed historical birthdate of Jesus Christ), but it bent to welcome non-believers and not treat them as infidels. Over the centuries it eventually grew to accept science where it conflicted with scripture, albeit grudgingly. Religious pluralism, including atheism; that is the present-day religious climate of the nations of the west that once used Christianity as a foundational pillar.

When scummy, decadent, NEA-recipient “artists” decide to mock Christianity by making “Piss Christ” or the cow-dung rendered “The Holy Virgin Mary,” no one is killed. There are no death threats, despite the outrage from offended Christians. In fact, the “artists” probably won’t even lose their tax-supported NEA funding! There is no Christian-equivalent fatwa. The worst thing that can happen is excommunication. I doubt the “artists” were worried about that...

The real “religious” intolerance in the west today comes from the anti-religious zealots. Case in point: the recent contrived outrage expressed by secular “progressives” upon discovering a restaurant that merely admitted it would decline a request to cater a gay marriage if asked to do so! The national outrage, stoked by the media, reached such a fever pitch that the state legislative body was compelled to enact emergency legislation to “correct” the law that would permit a private business to act in such a way.

Such media-driven crusades resemble Islamic intolerance far more than any supposed religious bigotry of the shop owners. No wonder “progressives” now avoid the label “liberal.” They are the very antithesis of liberal.

When the U.S. curries favor with other nations, it doesn’t seek to impose our first religion upon them. It wants you to be our friend. Be friend to our friends. And give, at the very least, moral support when we oppose our enemies, such as voting with us in the U.N.

Sure, there’s a whole lot more to it than that. Most importantly, we want you to open your markets to our businesses. We want to encourage trade and investment. Investment in your country and your people that, on the balance, will raise the standard of living eventually in both of ours. No, your religion is fine—as long as it does not mandate death for non-believers.

And that takes us full circle. Why “revenge” is the justifiable reason to take whatever steps are necessary to squash ISIS and the “Caliphate” before it gains weapons of mass destruction and enters the growing pack of nations that we are now too scared to antagonize (North Korea, China, Russia, ...Iran?).

In ancient Rome’s heyday, any foreign state choosing to willfully abuse the person of a Roman citizen abroad knew what to expect: Shock and awe.  Power is meaningless if it is not enforced. This is the realpolitik of it. If you are the strongest, but the recalcitrant adversary sees no real risk in defying you with impunity, you lose the power to impose your will when it matters.

It is growing increasingly clear that America has crossed this border into a state of what could graciously be described as "diminishing capacity." 

“Leading from behind = Lack of will to lead.”

After the century of turmoil and civil war that led to the eventual demise of the Roman Republic, the foundation of the Empire laid by Augustus led directly to the Pax Romana, a (relative) peace that lasted for two centuries. Your definition of our Pax Americana may begin after WWII or may exclude the nuclear tinderbox that existed until the fall of the USSR in 1991, but it is now fraying at the seams.

ISIS is at war with us! Whether we like it or not. And ISIS is—by the way, Mr. President—Islamic. It’s in their name, for chrissakes; it’s the “I” in ISIS, IS, or ISIL, whichever you prefer.

ISIS is beheading, crucifying, and immolating “infidels,” including Americans. The honor of every American who has died in wars past and present demands that these atrocities not go unpunished, regardless of what happened in Iraq.

We are the new Rome.

Revenge, and revenge alone, is sufficient cause for us to respond militarily to destroy ISIS. The heck with “degrade.” And the real benefit: reestablishment of genuine fear in the minds of any enemies—or competitors—considering resisting our honorable and legitimate interests.

# # #

Copyright 2015

Distrust of Obama on Iran Nuke Deal Justified

Cries of “treason” have greeted the open letter to Iran’s leaders signed by 47 Republican senators.  Secretary of State John Kerry has led the charge against the Republicans who have, by general consensus, committed an unprecedented breach of protocol. But there is a strong case to be made for this “unpatriotic,” “unconstitutional”—possibly treasonous?—action.

The administration claims that the letter threatens to undermine their ability to negotiate a deal with Iran. Clearly, it’s critical to understand what the actual objectives of our negotiations are.

 

In February, Kerry addressed Congress, stating emphatically that under the deal, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. "The president has made clear—I can't state this more firmly—the policy is: Iran will not get a nuclear weapon," he told members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee.

This declaration is key to my analysis, and I’ll return to it shortly.

What, then, was the purpose of the letter? I won’t bother to rebut the ridiculous reasons offered by President Obama (in his interview with VICE News) that the Republicans were in league with the Iranian hardliners...   nor add legitimacy to claims whispered by race-baiting Democrats by responding to them.

No, I think the reason is really just what it seems: the senators simply don’t trust Obama to make a deal with Iran over nuclear weapons. I share this distrust, and I know I’m not alone.

There is plenty of evidence that Obama seeks a rapprochement with Iran, much like his present campaign to normalize relations with Cuba.

The Obama “Iranian connection” is well known. Its focal point is Valerie Jarrett, his Iranian- born senior advisor. Since first occupying the office and going on his “apology” tour of the Middle East, Obama saw himself in a historic role—the man who would pave the way for a new era in US-Islamic relations.

His subtle pivot away from Israel and toward her enemies provides further circumstantial evidence. Ditto his “terrorist summit” that was performed for Islamic leaders and seemed to have as its chief aim the prevention of associating Islam with the pandemic jihadist atrocities presently visited upon “infidels” and apostates around the world.

So what about the nuclear deal?  Any discussion that does not begin by asking the question, “Does Iran seek nuclear weapons?” is to my mind, facially invalid.

We used to hear this question often. It was always posed to any Iranian spokesman or diplomat granting an interview. We just don’t seem to hear it very much now, when you would think it is most critical. Why is that? After all, these negotiations... this deal... is supposed to be about preventing Iran from “going nuclear.” Isn’t it?

Perhaps the reason we don’t hear this question is because the answer is painfully, and laughably, obvious.  Of course Iran seeks nuclear weapons!   Is there anyone outside of Iran who doubts this?

They sit on the fourth largest crude oil reserves in the world. At a time when nations are sensibly dismantling their nuclear industries and moving to healthier and safer renewable energy sources, how can anyone claim with a straight face that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power is to satisfy its energy needs? Unless, that is, “peaceful purposes” is really just a euphemism for “obtaining nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Israeli or US aggression.”

The lesson to be learned from our handling of North Korea in contrast to Iraq or Libya is not lost on Tehran. If you possess nuclear weapons, and particularly a sophisticated missile delivery system, you do not need to fear military intervention from the U.S. (By the way, Iran has an ICBM program.)

What is also obvious is that should (at this point we might be tempted to say “when”) Iran develop nuclear weapons it will set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia will be next in line, presumably with our help. Then... Egypt? Turkey?

The thought of any nuclear armed Islamic nations in the Middle East should be cause for maximum alarm to any sane person. It should in fact be the highest priority of the civilized world to prevent this from ever happening. Do I need to say the word: ISIS?

Inferring no judgments on the Israeli Prime Minister and his address to Congress, Netanyahu said, "The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons." 

In light of the scale and degree of the Jihadi atrocities we have now witnessed, can this be disputed?

And so we return to our negotiations with Iran over its nuclear “program.” What is the Obama administration really seeking? Is it to ensure that “Iran will not get a nuclear weapon”?

What is missing from Kerry’s statements above?  A time coordinate.

When, Mr. President; Mr. Secretary of State?  Until when?

What I fear, and what I believe is shared by many including the 47 Republican signatories, is that the time parameter is intentionally left off. I think the unstated time is “in the immediate future,” or “for the remainder of my administration,” or perhaps at the extreme terminus of ten years, as that number features into the controversial “sunset clause” of the deal.

Netanyahu again, speaking of the deal, one quote that rings resoundingly true: “It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.”

I believe that Obama & Co. are reconciled to the inevitability of a nuclear-armed Iran, and that perhaps they envision an alliance with Iran as the first step in a some future grand reconciliation between the three religions spawned by the children of Abraham—after Iran finishes off ISIS, that is.

But most importantly, Obama envisions a nuclear deal with Iran as part of his legacy, and he is willing to do anything to get it.

# # #

Book Review: The Art of Living Forever, by Pierce Timberlake

Mark Charalambous

February, 2015

Pierce Timberlake has written a wonderful and thought provoking short book ruminating on the ultimate questions of life and death.  “The Art of Living Forever” dissects various established philosophies on how best to live this wonderful and mysterious thing we call “life,” and then subtly and logically leads us to a plausible rationale for the current popular notion that what we perceive as existence may actually be a turbocharged virtual reality game.

Timberlake’s meditations begin with observations one day at his job as a telemetry technician in a hospital observing the CRT screens displaying the heart signals of several patients. One of them is experiencing his last moments. The patient’s acknowledgment that he is ready for “the big show” stimulates Timberlake’s own thoughts on the Big Question.

He starts by questioning the (seemingly) inherent unfairness of death itself. This leads to the question of how best to use the time we have before arriving in that last hospital bed. He cleverly dissects the incongruities inherent in “living for the moment,” taking the time to correct the common misconception of Epicureanism while comparing it with hedonism, and then contrasting both with stoicism and altruism, living for others. Finally, he explores the common notion of “life is for learning.”

Timberlake writes with a dry sense of humor while displaying a sparkling wit as evidenced in this passage on altruism:

“Altruism: fulfilling yourself through service to others

“One standard of conventional wisdom is that we find meaning in our lives by living for others. I’ve heard this in some form since I was very young, and have generally bought into it. Even as a child, though, one question bothered me: If I live for others, who do they live for? Do they live for some third party, who in turn lives for someone else, and so on, going around in a daisy chain until it finally comes back to me? It would seem to be more efficient if everyone just lived for themselves. Living for each other sounds friendlier, but it would be more straightforward if we each took care of our own situations. After all, who knows what you want and need better than you do?”

Man’s belief systems on the big picture, what it all means, cannot rightly be separated from the state of his technology and understanding of the physical universe. Presently, a new explanation of the Big Picture has emerged that reflects the digital revolution. Timberlake speculates on a perfect future where human ambitions have been fully realized and even immortality become possible. What this would mean for the human condition eventually leads us to the fanciful notion that our experience of reality is actually software, within a huge virtual reality game existing in cyberspace. This new reality paradigm would not have been possible before the advent of the computer. It has been popularized in science fiction, most notably with the “The Matrix” movies, and intelligently explored in the TV show “Caprica,” the “Battlestar Galactica” (remake) spinoff.

Timberlake incrementally, and ingeniously, leads us to how such a “world” could evolve from a highly intelligent, technologically advanced species. Step by step, he reveals how a life such as we all experience, with no knowledge of the higher reality and no memory of past life excursions into the “Game,” is the logical outcome.

***

Assume immortality is medically and technologically achievable, how long would it take for boredom to take its toll? It can be argued that once we have reproduced, had children, Nature is done with us. We have served our purpose. Once one reaches a certain age, and has children, this can come to feel intrinsically, and painfully, true. Certainly our aging bodies behave in this way. At a ripe old age, observation of family members who inevitably pass away, usually—or at least, often—confirms that at our expiration date we are ready for death. We, with resignation, understand that there is really nothing left for us to “do.”

If it were possible to “reboot” our consciousness (mental capacities?) into a new body, how many would choose to do so? In the cyber-reality “Game” scenario, those who do so would eventually realize that the ennui could only be overcome if any memory of our previous existence (both the “real” as well as our cyber-reality “avatar” lives) were hidden from us.

This scenario so neatly fits the Hindu concept of reincarnation that it can’t be ignored. A question arises: Does this similarity with an existing religious worldview make it a more, or less, plausible picture of “reality”?  That depends on the individual, and their existing beliefs.

For me, there is a fundamental flaw in the concept of reincarnation. The notion of a wheel of repeated lives requires an absolute framework within which these lives occur: a constant, universal flow of time. But not only do we know from Einstein that no such thing as absolute time exists, we can reject it on the basis of two other lines of reasoning: 

(1) On an epistemological basis, namely that our perception of time is a result of our physical bodies and our senses, and as such it is not provable that time represents anything “real.”

(2) If reincarnation were real, then we could claim to understand what happens after we die. That is, what happens after death is something that can be understood rationally, by the brain of this species of life that evolved over some 2 billion years on this particular planet. I refuse to accept that that is the case. I do not believe that what happens after death is something that can be understood, expressed and communicated, in the sense that our human-created languages could codify it into words. As one wise person once said, “The map is not the territory.”

Nonetheless, the “Game” scenario is an intriguing thought experiment, if nothing else, and makes at least as much sense as the various other theories of the afterlife believed by billions of people.

***

Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius, Nietzsche, William Blake, Descartes and Plato all make guest appearances as either authors or exponents of various philosophical schools of thought or important contributors to the grand discussion of the human condition throughout the ages.

Other than Zen and the reincarnation aspects of Hinduism, religion gets small mention. This book is not about rote belief in a prescribed set of explanations for life and the afterlife. Timberlake acknowledges that a more comprehensive treatment, including religious thought, would require another, different book.

Timberlake writes with humanity and gentle wit in a voice that doesn’t preach or condescend, guiding the reader with reason, humility and honesty through his landscape of ideas on the ultimate questions. He has three other titles that followed “The Art of Living Forever,” they are:

“Sex, Not-Sex, and Love,” “Should You Study a Martial Art?” and, “Style as Ideology / Ideology as Style.”  They are all available on Amazon for the kindle, and I look forward to reading them.

# # #

Timberlake, Pierce (2014-01-19). The Art of Living Forever (Kindle Locations 443-444).  Kindle Edition.

Janay Rice and the Domestic Violence Narrative

It didn’t take long ruminating on the Ray Rice story to realize that it provided not just one—not two—but three touches of the Third Rail. How could I resist?

Prepare to be offended...

I’ll start by acknowledging that not only do I have no knowledge or interest in the principals involved, but I have little interest in the sport itself. It usurped the name from the greatest sport on the planet—for a game, evolved from rugby, in which kicking the ball isn’t allowed in the normal course of play.

Part of the enjoyment of watching sports is the vicarious fantasy of imagining yourself in the athlete’s boots. I have no affinity for the typical football player.

So, I had never heard of Ray Rice. From what I’ve seen of the video, he’s one more argument for ignoring the sport.

 

What I find compelling about this story is that it rides on the intersection of two politically correct paradigms. The victim-feminist narrative meets the imperative to minimize and rationalize black violence.

Let’s begin with the video.

Once the video from the inside of the elevator emerged, it was obvious by the careful editing what had happened.  The video cut started almost immediately at Ray Rice throwing the knock-out blow. But even with the careful editing, it was evident that his wife was the aggressor. She wasn’t cowering with her back to the wall of the elevator, covering her face. She was moving towards him, arms swinging.

The only question then was how long it would take to see the rest of the video.

Now that it’s available, we learn that Janay spat in her husband’s face, and threw punches at him. That’s assault and battery, by the way. What I get from the video is two trashy human beings, and quite frankly, I don’t give a whit for either of them.

But we need to analyze this, regardless of the quality of the individuals, because this is being played out in the court of victim-feminist political correctness.

When a man is physically attacked by a woman—especially one with whom he is intimately acquainted such as a wife or girlfriend—he essentially has four options:

1. He can defend himself by fighting back.
2. He can attempt to defend himself by raising his arms to ward of the blows or otherwise constraining his attacker’s movements.
3. He can flee to avoid the assault.
4. He can stand by and let himself be beaten.

Most, if not all women know that if there is a physical altercation between a man and a woman, the man is toast once law enforcement and the judicial system get involved.

This is why women are empowered to assault men. They know they can get away with it, and they presume that their victim knows it.  And so they can strike with impunity.

Perhaps Janay was operating on this assumption. But what happens in a fight is not predictable. Adrenalin flows. Emotions flare. I don’t know if Ray Rice was in control of his emotions and he lashed out in cold, calculating fashion to put his wife in her place, or if he acted impulsively, under duress, and retaliated in rage. Whichever it was, I doubt Janay was expecting it.

So, for whatever reason, perhaps sheer stupidity, Ray chose the first option. Let’s examine the options he didn’t take.

Option 3 was not available to him. He was in a small enclosed area from which he couldn’t escape.

Most reasonable people would say that the only appropriate response was Option 2: try to thwart his wife’s blows in a purely defensive manner. The most obvious way would be to grab her wrists, disabling her arms. His wife would then likely kick him, and perhaps keep spitting. The struggle would likely continue as Ray would try to maneuver his much weaker wife into a position where she couldn’t kick him until the elevator arrived at their destination when he could exit and get away from her.

But here’s what people don’t understand about how domestic violence is handled thanks to the “feminist jurisprudence” that reigns in the legal system in domestic relations cases.

Option 2 is treated no different than Option 1. Regardless of who initiates violence, once a man lays hold of the woman—or even raises his arms to ward of blows—he is the aggressor, the guilty party. He is the criminal, and he will suffer the legal consequences, which can include jail, probation, and if the altercation occurs within a family breakup, loss of his children, as in the criminalization of any contact with his children and the legal stripping of all his parental custodial rights (except to provide financial support for them).

So, in a scenario such as the Rice’s, Ray really only had one choice: Option 4.

The only way that he might emerge legally blameless in this situation would be to put his arms down and his let his wife spit on him and repeatedly strike him. Or he could curl up, turn his back, and cower in a corner of the elevator.

That is the only option that the legal system allows for a man in this situation.

At this point, you might think that I am being sympathetic to a wife-beater. I’m not. I have no sympathy for Ray Rice. His response was despicable.  But I am attempting to tear away the utter bullcrap of how this incident is being presented. Janay Rice is no victim. She spit in her husband’s face and assaulted him. She is a violent woman. And she made the mistake of thinking her thug of a husband was smart enough to realize that he had no choice but to take his punishment.  

Enter Whoopi Goldberg, the only person I have seen to date who has actually stated that women should not be surprised to get hit back if they hit their husbands/boyfriends. Therefore, she says, don’t do it, gurrls.

As if this actually has to be said. But sure enough, Whoopi was met with quick condemnation for stating the obvious.

I was raised to never hit girls. It was considered un-manly. I passed that life-lesson on to my boys. All boys were raised this way. If they were raised by a mother and a father.

But that was a different time. A time when men aspired to be “gentlemen” and women to be “ladies.”  Feminism has since remedied that.  “Lady” is a term of patriarchal oppression.

And hence we get the present-day, post-feminism of Whoopi Goldberg, essentially erasing the code of chivalry that established men’s protective role of women—even if being assaulted by one.  Just deck the bitch... Women, if you don’t want to get clocked by your man, don’t hit him.

What a world we have carved out for our children thanks to feminism.

And now the third touch to the Third Rail: the violence of the African-American population.

We are now getting inundated with domestic violence propaganda, targeting its prevalence in the NFL.  I have no doubt that there is a large amount of domestic violence committed by football players. The overwhelming majority of football players are African-American. And they, as a population sub-group, are incredibly violent, in relation to whites, Asians, ... the rest of the population.

But we’re not supposed to notice this. Mentioning it is tantamount to professional suicide, depending on your career. I heard Jesse Jackson say on TV, in Ferguson, MO, addressing the ostensible violence systematically perpetrated by racist white cops against blacks, that “black-on-white crime is rare.”

He actually said this.

When counting violent crime (which includes things like robbery as well as assault and battery), black-on-white violent crime occurs at rate of 5 : 1 compared against white-on-black violence.

But that’s not the whole story. The population ratio of whites-to-blacks is also, coincidentally 5 : 1.

That means, on a population weighted normalizing of these statistics, the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black violent crime is 25 : 1.

Furthermore, if we single out purely violent crime, that is, aggravated assault, the ratio jumps to an incredible 200 : 1.

When African-American youths make a game out of knocking out a random white person on the street with a single punch, and videoing it to broadcast on social media, the affirmative denial of black violence by white liberals reaches the diabolical.  “Flashmobs” are really groups of African-American youths ransacking and looting a place of business; occasionally pausing to join in a beat down of a shopper.

The incredible level of violence in the African-American population is directly a result of what I have coined the War on Fatherhood. Two-thirds of black children are raised without their father in the home. Without the male role model provided by the father, African-American youth look to successful black role models: pimps, rappers, and athletes. Like Ray Rice.

It’s not inferior schools. It’s not institutional racism. It’s not racial profiling. It’s not racist cops. It’s not white privilege. It’s fatherlessness. The destruction of the biological nuclear family; the ultimate failure of the African-American culture.

I offer a conjecture. It is my opinion that levels of fatherlessness of two-thirds cannot be attributed solely to inherent defects in the black culture.  Of course that is what feminism attributes it to: failures of men.  But single-maternal households are rising in the white population, too.  I assert that fatherlessness is attributed to public policies, laws and social engineering that are demanding it. Fatherless families are now part and parcel of our culture, promoted in our schools, the media and the entertainment industry.

I attribute it to one more “success” of feminism, the open-ended goal of which is female empowerment. Nothing may contradict it. After all, a woman needs a man like ...

But on the Rice case, the domestic violence narrative is trumps.  And there’s no need to downplay Ray’s violence because he’s African-American, because this can easily be masked under the ‘domestic violence in sports’ paradigm.

I still have yet to hear a whimper of even questioning Janay’s behavior in the elevator.  Victim-feminism is many things. Here, it serves as an instruction to stop thinking. Man knocks out wife. What’s to question?

When a woman assaults her husband, on those rare occasions when it breaks the news, the typical line of inquiry begins, “What did he do to her?” And the words “domestic violence” are assiduously avoided in any news coverage.

Victim-feminism is more than an ideology of hate, it’s quasi-religious. One of its fruits is the new definitions of family, specifically, the fatherless family. Hence, the growing toxicity in African-American communities like Ferguson, and people like Ray and Janay Rice.

The family civilizes the beast in man. And it provides the safe environment for a woman to procreate. Without it, especially in the African-American population, we see boys and girls brought up with no concept of civility, no apparent understanding and appreciation for the value of life, and young men committing violent crimes of senseless brutality.

#   #   #

Book review: "Who Owns the Future?" by Jaron Lanier

Reviewed by Mark Charalambous

“Who Owns the Future?” attempts to answer the big question: where is this all going?

By “this” I mean the big picture from an economic perspective.

“Income disparity” is a popular meme.  The growing concentration of wealth, complemented by the shrinking of the middle class—or, more accurately, the lowering of the standard of living of the middle class.

Jaron Lanier does not promote the usual explanations that typically involve socio-political sloganeering of some sort. He explains the technological trend that is the real underlying cause, a change every bit as profound as the industrial revolution that transformed the world in the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

According to Lanier, the concentration of wealth in market economies is the norm.  Visualize a curve of exponential growth. The genius of democratic societies organically creates artificial barriers (Lanier calls them “levees”) to this inexorable movement of wealth from the many to the few. These are things like labor unions, the minimum wage, social security, Medicare, and tenure regimes for teachers. To Lanier, these are necessary adjustments to a system that otherwise would leave the mass of the population eventually impoverished.

But relax; Lanier is no socialist laying down a treatise on “social justice.”

After identifying the technological causes leading to the erosion of the middle class and an ever-increasing concentration of wealth, Lanier proposes a solution.

What we are presently undergoing is the equivalent of the industrial revolution: the inexorable growth of the digital world. The transferring of information into digital bits accessible to everyone with a computer or smartphone. The universal accessibility of information in the “cloud” via the internet is upending and outright destroying traditional business models and industries one by one, such as the music and travel industries.

Businesses and industries presently entering the process of slow disintegration because of simpler and cheaper online alternatives include real estate (Zillow and Trulia), taxi service (Uber), education (MOOCs), book publishing and brick-and-mortar retailing (Amazon), as well as newspapers and magazines.

What replaces these businesses is an online service. The service is centered at what Lanier refers to as a “siren server” —yes, the Sirens that lured sailors to their doom in Homer’s Odyssey. They lure the user with the promise of “free.”  But as Lanier painstakingly details, nothing is really free in the new digital economy. We pay—we just don’t realize it right away because the price we pay is subtle and diffuse. One price we are paying is, in effect, the loss of middle class jobs—jobs replaced by online transactions. Another price we are paying is privacy. Every transaction we make is tracked. A small step to every thought we make...

In the digital world, wealth becomes concentrated about a relatively small locus of points in the immediate vicinity of the siren server.  This aspect of the economic revolution we are undergoing has been noticed. It is present in the dire warnings constantly given about the need for better STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Math) education.  The argument is that future jobs—those that supposedly will replace all the disappearing jobs in pre-digital world businesses that have been supplanted by free software apps on the Net—will require mathematical, science and (computer) engineering skills. That may be technically true; however—and it’s a big however—there will never be anywhere near the same quantity of jobs created in the digital world economies to balance those lost to the middle class. Furthermore, believing that we can train thousands of students who can’t add fractions to compete for jobs in hi-tech is, well, laughable.

Lanier views this new concentration of income wealth as a consequence of the natural laws of economics responding to a technological revolution.   Formerly middle class jobs will continue to be destroyed, and furthermore, what we have seen in the music industry, the newspaper industry, and brick-and-mortar book stores, is just the beginning. It’s going to get a lot worse.

Lanier provides several future scenarios to argue his case. What is the logical conclusion of 3D-printing?  Only the end of manufacturing as we know it, perhaps.  Consumer products, including electronics and clothes, will be manufactured individually in the home. Plumbers will ‘print out’ a necessary pipe fitting, obviating the need not only for factories, but also for both distributors and plumbing supply stores! Besides the printer itself, the new commodity will be the software designs for the items “printed.”  Once again, siren servers will emerge. A finite number of smart technicians, cranking out software designs. Lost: entire industries. Uncountable number of middle-class jobs.

We have already seen how some industries have attempted to cope with the digital revolution. The music industry fought tooth, claw and lobbyist against Napsta and the inevitable digitizing of “music product.”  Ultimately in vain. Ask your son/daughter how they get their music, if you don’t already know.

But other industries appear completely oblivious to the writing on the wall. In the case of education, teachers, the soon-to-be-displaced workers, have actually cooperated with the siren servers to destroy their own professions!

Do colleges and universities really believe that their monopoly on academic accreditation will insulate them from online education provided by MOOCs (massive open online courses)?  Newsflash: it will be the Googles and the Facebooks that will be the first to acknowledge academic competence of the skills that matter (to them) earned via MOOCs. Once hi-tech opens the floodgates... 

It is only a matter of time before private enterprise MOOCs muscle their way into the college accreditation business, and essentially nullify the value of a BA from PCU. It is only a matter of time before college students (and especially their parents) rebel at the notion of paying $50,000 to take online courses at a college, when the exact same value can be obtained with the same effort from a far cheaper alternative.

Jaron Lanier is not some dystopian futurist; he is a bona fide computer scientist with Silicon Valley pedigree. He is part of the industry. He presently works for a siren server: Microsoft. Some of his predictions for future technological advancements driven by digitizing the world will surprise and shock you.  But no matter how wild, they are all eminently plausible, and no doubt several startups will have as their genesis an idea first read in this book.

If the book did no more than this, it would be a must-read for anyone curious about where “this” is all going. But Lanier does more—he offers a way out, a solution.

Whenever Lanier explores the mechanism of a particular siren server, he exposes the free informational input necessary for its success.  This is the information that we users give to the servers, sometimes unknowingly through cookies but just as often consciously by volunteering information. If you have ever written an online review of a product, a book or concert video, you have given away monetary value to a siren server. A good review generates Likes. And Likes generate sales. Text might be lifted directly out of a review for use by another review or the siren server itself.

Credit scoring provides another example.  A lender relies on a credit score. The credit score is derived from a scorecard that is only possible because of strategic credit information culled, without knowledge or consent, from thousands of people. The lender profits from the information in the credit score by using it to determine credit risk. The tens of thousands of consumers who contributed to that algorithm receive no remuneration for their contribution that made the scorecard possible.

A dating site similarly relies on an algorithm. The algorithm in turn is constructed by analyzing data points. A particular couple who used the site and ended up marrying are considered a success. The parameters for the ‘perfect match’ algorithms are based in some part on this particular couple. They receive no remuneration.

What we are talking about here is the source of the data. The data’s historical record. Lanier’s solution to the growing economic dislocations we are experiencing is to establish the provenance of all data, and then a payment (“nano-payments”) system of, in effect, royalties for any and all originators of data.

So, in this scenario, any clever post in a FB timeline that gets Shared can earn a royalty. What Lanier is proposing, keeping the history of all data with the data itself, requires new internet protocols. But he insists it is not only doable, but actually was a choice in the original inception of the internet, one that could have been made but wasn’t.  He also offers several fanciful schemes for how the payment scheme would actually work.

Lanier’s analysis of the digital revolution and its impact on the middle class is compelling. He offers one solution. I have yet to hear others that make as much sense. I think his suggestions are worth considering.