Word of the Day #1: Meretricious

The Word of the Day is:

Meretricious

adjective  mer·e·tri·cious \ˌmer-ə-ˈtri-shəs\

The definition of today's word is:

1. 1:  of or relating to a prostitute :  having the nature of prostitution meretricious relationships
2. 2a :  tawdrily and falsely attractivethe paradise they found was a piece of meretricious trash — Carolyn Seeb :  superficially (see superficial 2) significant :  pretentiousscholarly names to provide fig-leaves of respectability for meretricious but stylish books — The Times Literary Supplement (London)

And the reason we looked this word up today is:

The Mom Who Hosted Naked Twister Also Allegedly Took A ‘Multi-Party’ Bubble Bath With Teens

What is this WORLD coming to?

Begging the Question?

Everyone knows that "begging the question" is a technical term used in logic and debate. The term refers to the flaw of asserting an unproven assumption as if it were true. Therefore, obviously, no one would ever use "begging the question" to mean raising or posing a question that needs to be answered.

#SeeWhatIDidThere? #Sarcasm #Humor #Rants#MrLanguagePerson

The Pink Freud Matter: Today's Lesson in Critical Thinking

Have you seen this quote circulating on any of your social media sites?

Quote attributed to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) 

Odds are good that you have seen this quote at least once. It showed up in my news feed again recently. This particular image has 1.2 million shares on just one Facebook site (Fb / The Idealist, as in "idea list"). There may be countless other individuals and groups circulating this same image via Facebook. It's on Twitter, too. And Pinterest. In short--it's everywhere.

Furthermore, plenty of creative people have entered their own versions of the meme into circulation. A simple Google search reveals a multitude of variations.

Not only have you probably seen this exact poster--or one very similar to it--but you may have even shared it with your friends and contributed to its popularity. Oh, we love the sardonic and heartfelt wisdom in the remark. And we'd love to ascribe such earthy wisdom to someone whose reputation validates our instinctive trust. Confirmation bias (the tendency to believe statements because they reinforce our previous understanding) makes it easy for us to accept the attribution to Freud without question--as millions of others have done.

However, the famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud is most certainly not the author of that quote. That's right, we've all been duped! Because ...

Freud never said those words!

Freud was a prolific writer. Many great quotes are legitimately attributed to him. The following links feature quotes gleaned from his writings. At best case, they are properly cited. As you read through them you will notice certain tonal qualities to them that reveal the context and content of Freud's thoughts. Yet no where will you find the "quote of the day."

• Notable Quotes
• WikiQuote
• GoodReads
• BrainyQuote
• A-Z Quotes

In Freud's day (the early 20th century), few educated people used offensive gutter terms like "assholes" in serious conversation. Apparently many others have questioned the language of this quote, because a simple search of the Internet turns up many variations of the quote of the day in which the offending term is replaced with something else.

• I found an "arseholes" version. (Born and educated in eastern Europe, Freud died in London. This term is common vernacular in England today, but was it used by an Austrian ex-pat in 1920?)
• There are many versions, still attributed to Freud, where the offending word is replaced with benign synonyms: "idiots," "bunch of jerks," or "mean people." 
• In one version, the offending word is not replaced but boldly over-written with "idiots." This edited version makes it clear that the person circulating the quote did not approve of "Dr. Freud's" language and wanted to substitute a more suitable term without breaking attribution. 
• Many of the modified quotes are shared anonymously, without attribution of any kind. 
• Perhaps my "favorite" version is the one published by Board of Wisdom (www.boardofwisdom.com) and credited to someone supposedly named Laura Rose. Neither the Board of Wisdom nor Laura Rose understand plagiarism.  

Nice try, Laura Rose! (If that is your real name.)

Laura Rose: Altering is not authoring!

So far, we've seen how the popular quote has been attributed to Freud without a shred of evidence and despite the inconsistency with his other, properly attributed quotes. We've seen how the language of the quote has been edited by a number of others, and even co-opted by at least one more would-be author. Turns out, Freud is not the only person people want to believe uttered these words. The quote has also been misattributed to  the award-winning science fiction author, William Gibson.

William Gibson (1948-present) did not say these words, either

Compare the Freud and Gibson versions and note the subtle difference in the last phrase: "...just surrounded by assholes," versus "...just surrounding yourself with assholes." The former is passive, and the latter is active. Unlike our friend Laura Rose, Gibson did not change a couple of words and pass the quote off as his own idea. Gibson merely re-tweeted--initially without attribution--something he saw and enjoyed. Others, seeing the Gibson imprimatur, were all too quick to ascribe his authorship and create posters such as the one above. But the fact is that Gibson not only did not write the quote, he has actively attempted to give credit to the (less famous) person he re-tweeted. Yet the misattribution to the more well-known writer persists.

The question of who authored the quote was put to Quote Investigator (http://quoteinvestigator.com) and researchers there scoured the Internet and written records for clues. They actually searched Freud's papers and contacted people such as William Gibson and asked questions. They found a tweet by @debihope published in 2010. When contacted, she said she just wrote what she felt after a bad breakup. The researchers failed to turn up any prior citations.

Based on current evidence, we conclude that Debbie Hope (Twitter handle @debihope) should be credited with composing this saying. The attribution to William Gibson (Twitter handle @GreatDismal) was based on a misunderstanding because he re-tweeted the remark. Gibson himself never tried to take credit for the quote, and attempted to credit Steven Winterburn (Twitter handle @5tevenW) from whom Gibson had re-tweeted the quote. Interestingly, Winterburn has claimed to be the originator, but his first use (May 24, 2011) was 16 months after that of Debbie Hope (Jan 24, 2010). The ascription to Freud has no substantive support.

Note how easy it is to believe that Freud said these words. The words make sense and we want to believe them. We may even want to share them so that we can be affiliated with the wisdom contained in them. But when it comes to credibility, with which person do we prefer to align our opinions? Sigmund Freud? Impressive! Or William Gibson? Popular! How about Steve Winterburn? Debbie Hope? Anonymous? Or maybe we follow the Laura Rose example and put our own name on it?

From evidence, we conclude the attribution to Freud is incorrect. Gibson vigorously denied authoring the statement. Both Winterburn and Laura Rose claimed attribution in error. That leaves Hope, the person who claims the quote. So far, no previous version has been documented.

So the matter is settled. Or, is it? Why do so many people persist in attaching the quote to Gibson or Freud?  

Pink Freud to the rescue! 

Fixed it! Or, did I? Who is Pink Freud?

So, what is the point of all this? Several lessons can be drawn.

• Don't believe every poster or meme--they are easy to make. Deb Hope is not the meme artist known as Pink Freud even though I spent all of 5 minutes making the above poster.
• Think critically about the information that is pouring into your ears and eyes. Don't be so quick to trust the attribution given by someone else.
• Avoid confirmation bias by asking challenging questions about what you know versus what you want to believe.
• Always test what you know and check sources. Don't make up a source or accept an unverified source
• Give credit where it's due. Do not plagiarize or take credit for someone else's idea.

Thanks for reading PhilosFX. Check out these related links!

• Quote Investigator http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/10/25/diagnose/
• Plagarism? Or "attribution decay"? http://hellogiggles.com/internet-steals-words-get-back/2/
• Books by William Gibson http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/books/books.asp
• This exchange is illuminating! https://rfilkov.com/2012/09/22/siegmund-freud-on-depression/

Call to Action: Shut down the "Deathtrap"

Tell #NBC that you will NOT watch the March 1st episode of #ChicagoFire because you are a decent human being and it's too soon to make money off of the horror that was the "Ghost Ship" fire.

NBC is planning to air an episode entitled "Deathtrap" which is a realistic depiction of the Oakland warehouse fire that took place just 3 months ago. That fire trapped and killed 36 people and injured 2 more. The community and the survivors and their friends and families are still reeling from this devastating loss!

The synopsis of "Deathtrap" makes it clear that NBC is re-enacting the Oakland warehouse fire in a Chicago setting. The casting call makes explicit reference to "Ghost Ship" and the requirement for actors to re-enact the experience of being trapped in a blazing warehouse. How did this disgusting and crass story get green-lighted? Have the executives at NBC lost their minds?

Call to Action

• Social media warriors, drive to ZERO the viewership for this indecent episode.
• Corporate sponsors, withdraw your advertising dollars from this repugnant programming.
• Dick Wolf, super-star producer, admit that this idea was a crass mistake, and acknowledge the lesson learned: We value life when we respect the dead.

Links to more information on this issue

• Detailed investigation of the fire: http://www.sfchronicle.com/oakland-fire/
• Biographies of the victims: http://projects.sfchronicle.com/2016/oakland-fire-victims/
• Another look at victims' profiles: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Profiles-of-those-who-died-in-huge-warehouse-fire-10691083.php
• Chicago Fire, Episode 5.15, "Deathtrap," promotional photos and press release: http://www.spoilertv.com/2017/02/chicago-fire-episode-515-deathtrap.html
• Ripped-from-the-headlines plot is a crass move: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/23/ghost-ship-fire-inspires-nbc-drama-a-really-crass-move/​
• File under gross things that TV executives do: http://sfist.com/2017/02/23/ugh_nbcs_chicago_fire_shooting_epis.php
• Tell NBC to get ready for social media warfare! ​http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/leadership-overview​
• Super-Producer​ ​Dick Wolf is joined by Matt Olmstead, Danielle Gelber, Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, Peter Jankowski, and Joe Chappelle​. Light them up! http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/the-peacock-picks-up-grimm-chicago-fire-and-chicago-p-d​

"We value life when we respect the dead."

Am I Part of the Problem?

Cognitive dissonance: when you expect music but all you hear is noise  

I look at the world and I shake my head in confusion. I should be living the dream. Instead, my life often feels more like a nightmare. There are glorious aspects for which I am profoundly grateful, but the context around the golden nuggets seems increasingly disconnected and bizarre. Or was August 2014 just a particularly horrific month?

Just this past month alone:

• ISIL is threatening. Video footage of a journalist’s brutal execution circulated through social media networks. The United States authorized airstrikes in Iraq. Approximately a dozen American citizens (read: US passport holders) have taken up arms in support of ISIS, ISIL, or whatever they are calling themselves this week. After our huge investment in Iraq, why have we been unable to promote stable societies in the region?
• Russia is looming. War raged between government forces and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia denies fomenting this or supplying the separatists or supporting them with troops, weapons, and equipment. Yet Russian troops, weapons, and equipment are clearly involved. Putin says that maybe some troops are using their military leave to vacation in Ukraine, and what is he supposed to do, pull their passes? After our Cold War victory and NATO expansion, why have we been unable to contain Russia?
• The Levant is boiling. The death toll in Gaza escalated. The US has negotiated with Hamas, giving them the legitimacy they desire. The US has simultaneously backed an increasingly aggressive Israeli regime. Combined with our failure to contain ISIL, our schizoid foreign policy is paving the way for Armageddon. With all the bright minds at our disposal, why were we not able to see this coming?
• Diseases are raging. About 1,500 people died in one of the largest Ebola outbreaks in history. Even supposedly cured diseases are coming back. Polio is back and on the rise, mostly because some parents refuse the vaccine. What!? My own brother is in the fight of his life, battling Glioblastoma Multiforme Grade 4. This same drama is playing out for many, many families who love someone fighting a horrible, incurable disease. We are all pleading for more time as the doctors, doing all they can, are scrambling to find a cure. Why have we been unable to eradicate disease?  
• Ferguson is burning. A policeman fatally shot an unarmed black 18-year old Michael Brown, and left his body in the street for 4 hours. The incident incited protests and more violence. White people tend to point our that at 18, Michael Brown was an adult, not a boy, and he should not have been involved in a robbery, and he should not have pushed the Police officer before making a move to swipe the officer's side-arm. In other words, he was a punk who had it coming. And black people view the incident itself and the militarization of the Police force as proof of institutionalized oppression. Why have we been unable to build stable communities? 
• Heroes are dying. Robin Williams, who usually makes us laugh, succumbed to his personal demons and took his own life this month. Whether Robin Williams was a hero or not is debatable, but he was certainly popular. What about the relatively unknown soldier who cannot find a way to cope with war's aftermath? One hears the term "Hero" bandied about so often that it may be over-used, but the young men and women who answer the Nation's call to duty qualify in my book. Suicides among our warriors are surging, averaging nearly one a day this year – the fastest pace in the nation's decade of war. Why are too many people feeling that the only answer to their problems is to end their own lives? 
• Reporters are lying.  A psychologist claims that 10% of men are rapists, and NPR broadcasts and publishes this as if it were proven fact. Really? A democracy depends on an objective media reporting the truth in a clear manner. We do not need editorial slant on the front page. We are all entitled to our opinions, but we don't need someone else's opinions or biases passed off as objective fact. What happens to a society dedicated to democratic ideals when the Fourth Estate touches the Third Rail? 

How did this cauldron of greed, hatred, and injustice become the world in which I am raising my children? How could I be so wrong about so many things? Is my way of thinking outmoded? Am I actually part of the problem?

Nicholas Kristof thinks so, at least on the Ferguson issue, He says the race issue deserves more attention, not less. He says that racism caused the militarization of the Police force in Ferguson. He says that racism, not thuggery, caused the inevitable death of Mr. Brown. And in Part 2 of his New York Times OpEd, Kristof again shared the view that I am part of the problem when he wrote that whites just don't get it. My opinion is probably not going to be published in the New York Times, but in my opinion, we should look at behavior, not race. In my opinion, looking at race is the very definition of racism.

The iconic towers of the World Trade Center before 9/11

To me, the turning point in the World as We Know It was 9/11. The unpopular (but in my opinion, justified and necessary) wars that followed under the Bush Administration paved the way for the election of 2008. Americans elected Barrack Obama in part because the American people got tired of fighting to preserve stability in the Middle East. The problem is not Obama, the Man. The problem is America, the Sheeple. We elected an idealistic orator over a crotchety curmudgeon in 2008, and again over a smarmy oligarch in 2012. For better or for worse, in a democracy we get exactly what we deserve.

So let's look at what kind of world we have crafted for our children. Iraq is crumbling from within, not just because the Coalition departed, but our departure (abdication?) certainly emboldened and enabled the broader, Anti-West agenda, to wit:

• Russia is cackling with glee. It has (a) Europe in a headlock over energy, (b) the bulk of Asia as military customers, and (c) a feckless America at arm's length; 
• ISIS is literally erasing the borders between Syria and Iraq, as in, cutting the berms with dozers. 
• Though the Sunni-Shia divide is sharp, ISIS wants to re-establish the Islamic dominance in the Middle Eastern region first, then settle the leadership issue under the restored Caliphate 
• The Russian-backed Syrian president has just been re-elected, despite (or because of?) dropping barrel bombs on dissenters 
• Iran is happy to push Shi'a Islam westward, through Baghdad and toward Israel. Soon they will be within striking distance of Jerusalem with Russian-made weapons; 
• The Kurds are happy, since they have set their sites on swiping Diyarbakir from Turkey and creating the country of Kurdistan. And really, who will stop them? Iraq? Turkey alone? Turkey with NATO? Russia and China patiently await NATO's demise. They will watch and secretly help NATO sink into oblivion. 
• By negotiating with Hamas, even "unofficially," the Obama administration is giving them all the legitimacy they need; 
• China is not Anti-West in the same sense as the Russians and most of the Muslim world. China would rather ally with Asia than with America, it's as simple as that. 

If I have been part of the problem, let me be part of the solution going forward. Or, if the solution is unacceptable capitulation, then let me continue to be part of the problem until balance and stability is restored. Here is my wish-list:

• I want Russia neutered. Not physically, but politically, diplomatically, and--if necessary--militarily. (And maybe physically.) The Russia-Syria-Iran-China alliance is deeply troubling, especially when added to the ongoing unrest in Israel and surrounds. How much more of a threat does Russia need to be before we do something?
• I want Israel to exist. Preferably peacefully, and preferably as a state on land promised to her in the Bible. Granted, the Torah says that the Jews are to live in permanent diaspora as punishment, and the Koran is even less kind to God's Chosen People. But I do not advocate wiping Israel off the map. Further, I support resisting any attempt to do so. That said, I don't want Israel to have carte blanche to do whatever she pleases with our unblinking backing.
• I want ISIL crushed. Too few people in this country worry about whether their children will have grandchildren before Armageddon. Really, is pushing off Armageddon for a couple more generations too much to ask? Can we put down our wide-screen TV remotes and think past Tuesday?
• I want a cure for disease. Especially cancer and Ebola. And I want it by Tuesday. My brother needs a cure now and there are many others in a similar fight. On that note, I also want to live in society where people respect science and take the vaccine rather than risk infecting the rest of us. Speaking of society,  
• I want social justice. I want respect and rewards for people who do good, and fair punishment for people who break law--regardless of age, race, gender, or economic standing. This means that I want a Major General killed in combat to be revered while a thug who gets himself killed trying to take a cop's side-arm to be quickly forgotten, not the reverse. And 
• I want the truth. Yes, I want it, and yes, I can handle it. I want people to expect--no, demand--the objective truth all of our institutions, to include the media. Wait, especially the media. If the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches all screw it up, we can still get by if the Fourth Estate holds to the Truth. But if the media fails, too, we are well and truly screwed.

Is that to much to ask? Am I so wrong to ask for these things?

"Bring home the troops!" Polls are running this country, not leaders. Where are the leaders like the Churchill and Roosevelt who articulated a compelling, unifying vision, and only then listened to advisers and even the public opinion polls? In this country, the selfish tail is wagging the stupid dog. And Putin is playing fetch with bigger and bigger sticks (Crimea, Ukraine, former Eastern Block countries who joined NATO...).


Am I right? Or am I part of the problem? Or perhaps I am just ranting again...

Facts or Retraction, Please! Shame on NPR for its Shoddy and Biased Journalism!

My anti-rape stance is well documented in the pages of PhilosFX. It's also known that I have two daughters, one of whom is in college. Thus it should come as no surprise to readers that I would choose to listen closely to the following story about preventing campus rape.

Graphic by Maria Fabrizio for NPR

The Power Of The Peer Group In Preventing Campus Rape

by LAURA STARECHESKI

August 18, 2014 3:51 AM ET

However, what might come as a surprise to some readers--it certainly surprised me!--is my reaction to the following quote from within the cited story, which aired on my local NPR station, WAMU (emphasis added).

"John Foubert, the psychologist in Oklahoma, says it's important to remember that 90 percent of men have never committed a rape. The key is opening their eyes to what's going on with the other 10 percent, so they can see it and intervene."

My jaw hit the floor.... Did NPR's reporter just repeat--as if it were a documented fact--that 10% of all men are rapists?

Rape is a horrible crime. I would not put slander and libel in the same category, but those deliberate misrepresentations of fact are also crimes. What truly offends me, though, is the obvious bias in what should be a bias-free report. The assertion that 10% of all men are rapists fuels an agenda, namely, that men are pigs.

I could not believe my ears, so I searched the Internet for some external validation of my shock and disbelief. I found some confirmation of my observation in the similar reaction of an anonymous writer posting under the name "xPraetorius" at http://praetori.wordpress.com

"They [NPR] report on “rape on college campuses.” Again, it’s a report that throws out there as “fact” or as “news” highly suspect conclusions. NPR’s definition of “rape” is probably something like: “Any time a woman says it’s rape.” Including, by the way, all those times where she said it was rape, but was simply ashamed of her own behavior the next day.

"If a woman doesn't consent to sexual relations and a man forces himself on her, that’s rape.

"If a woman goes to a college frat party where they are serving alcohol, and does everything under the sun to make it seem that she’s available, then has a tryst and is ashamed the next day, that is not rape. 

"The way NPR reported this “story,” incoming freshmen girls in college are nothing more than empty-headed, naïve little does, out there for the plucking by the roving bands of predatory wolves in frat-boy’s clothing.

"Uhhhhhhhh… no." 

And then we get the line that stuck in my brain--and obviously in xP's as well--to wit: "it's important to remember that 90 percent of men have never committed a rape."

"Wait. Whuh? Was that supposed to be reassuring?!? Was that supposed to make us all say to ourselves, “Whew! We thought all men were nothing more than slavering, drooling, leering, rapists! What a relief that it’s only 10% of ‘em! The real truth: 99.99% of all men never commit rape." 

Now I do not know where xPraetorius gets his facts, either, and he offers no citations. I doubt the voracity of his 99.99% claim. My gut tells me that the truth lies between the extremes, that is, somewhere between 0.01% and 10% of all men have committed at least one rape. The fact that many rapists are serial rapists helps account for the high number of rapes, both reported and unreported. Again I have seen credible and disturbing estimates for the occurrence of rape. I am not disputing the fact that rape is a problem. I am disputing the unfounded and unhelpful assertion that one in 10 men are taking part in what could be described as a rape fest.

Perhaps the so-called Praetori are exaggerating to minimize the issue, and if so, that is wrong. However, the Praetori are not NPR. They are not claiming to be objective, merely thought-provoking. And they are taking no public funds for their efforts. I hold NPR to a much higher standard when it comes to fact-checking and objective, bias-free reporting. 

Rape is wrong, full stop. The weapon against evil is the Truth, not bias, hyperbole, fiction, or libel. Therefore, I call upon NPR to either provide the facts to back up the 10% claim, or publish a retraction of the bogus claim made in their story.

Come on, NPR! You are better than this!

I only wish Laura Starecheski or her editor at NPR would have invested a few minutes to check a fact or two before publishing such an onerous and erroneous statistic. I admit, the stats are hard to come by, but that does not justify settling for inflammatory conjecture! 

I joined Academia.edu and followed the William & Mary-trained psychologist, John Foubert, the author of the 90% line. I scanned some of his papers but have not yet found the source of his 10% statistic. But it ought to be his job to produce the evidence, not mine! 

I commented on NPR's post and again on a glowing review of Starecheski's story published in The Oregonian. No responses yet. Why not? 

I searched Laura Starecheski and found many images of her similar to the one shown below. I realize that I may be guilty of Lookism, but I confess that I had some very judging thoughts about her apparent agenda based only on her appearance in published photos. However, combined with this sample of her writing, I think it's credible that she is a man-hater with gender identity issues. And what does her performance say about the editorial stance at NPR on this issue? 

Come on, NPR! 

You are better than this, 

aren't you?

Full disclosure: 

• I am a proud sustaining member of my local NPR station, and as such I have a right to insist on quality journalism.
• I do not endorse everything in the xPraetorius post, but I will say that the stunned disbelief he described matched my own feeling. Read the whole post here: http://praetori.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/npr-watch-81814/

Absolutely Nothing? My Response to a Fellow Veteran’s Indictment of the Iraq War

Retired US Navy Chief Warrant Officer Jim Wright has an opinion, and by damn he wants to share it. If you have not seen it yet, please take a moment (or five) and read Wright's recent rant.

Absolutely Nothing: A Veteran’s Savage Indictment of the Iraq War 

Mission Accomplished?

Welcome back!

"War? 

--good god, ya'll!--

What is it good for?"

Absolutely nothing?

As rants go, I think we'd all have to agree, that one is mighty good: relentlessly fiery, brutally direct, and straight to the heart. Bam, bam, bam, BOOM! But I implore you, dear reader, with tears in my eyes, read the rant for entertainment, not for enlightenment.

Two points for my fellow Veteran, Mr. Wright, (and all of us) to consider:

(1) War is a necessary evil, 

(2) We get the leaders we deserve (especially in a democracy), and
(3) Sometimes I say, "Two points" and then think of a third and try to add it real quick. That does not make me a liar or a bad person. The truth changes. Let's not look at a gray world through black or white lenses.

Allow me to further illustrate and expand upon my points, 1 through n.

(1) To say that war is "good for absolutely nothing" is incredibly naive.  No one hates war more than those who must do the fighting, but as Pliny said, "Only the dead have seen the end of war." The warrior class understands the way to end war is to build and maintain a strong defense. No amount of ranting about the evils of war will ever fix human nature. Human beings have banded together to do violence upon enemies, real or perceived, since time immemorial. The quickest way to the dustbin of history is to be a weak, feckless, easy mark for aggressors. I am not advocating war. I am just saying that Vikings, pirates, and Imperialists are real, and you can either (a) join them, (b) defend yourself and your spoils, (c) live in fear, hoping your luck holds out, or (d) be a victim (and even if you smile while getting kicked, you are still getting kicked). This is not a defense of war or a glorification of combat or a call to arms. I do not advocate starting fights for the hell of it. That said, not all wars pass the Just War Theory or even the smell test. History is replete with bad wars. 

(2) To blame a bad or unjust war on leaders is to forget who empowered those leaders in the first place. This point is especially valid for the inhabitants of a democratic Republic such as the US of A. Mr. Wright's rant spares few people in Coalition leadership positions. He rips into Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Romney, McCain, Blair, the Koch brothers, and Rush Limbaugh with equal glee. Even poor Colin Powell gets eviscerated for not knowing better. Yet none of these people took their positions of authority by force. They have influence because We the Sheeple listen to them and either do what they say or do nothing to stop them. And for those of you sad souls living under a harsh dictatorship, may I remind you of point #1 above? You have options, too. A righteous revolt is Just War Theory approved, and further evidence of war's necessity.   

(3) To follow, like, or share Mr. Wright's rant is hopefully nothing more serious than to enjoy a little entertainment, not unlike forwarding this famous clip from Newsroom. Mr. Wright's savage tongue-lashing is a hoot to read! But once again I beg you, with tears in my eyes, do not take the rantings of this disgruntled man as enlightenment. His emotion-drenched pleadings and after-the-fact exaggerations completely miss the point of the war in Iraq, and yes, there was a point.

Here is the point: Look at the neighborhood around Israel and imagine Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia holding the line. Syria is geographically isolated from Russia and Iran. Now look closer. What happens to global security when a democratic and westward leaning Iraq collapses into a radical warlord-led, Caliphate-seeking, Israel-hating tribe? What if the borders created after WWI collapse, and Iraq simply disappears into a single theocracy running from the western border of Afghanistan to the eastern border of Lebanon and the northern border of Jordan? Coalition forces left Iraq too soon, and now ISIS has filled the void. See what I mean?  What's next?  Iraq falls at great peril to peace and stability in the Middle East and thus to our way of life.

Here is the bottom line. Too many people bemoan the price of war without consideration for cost of freedom. All I want is to delay Armageddon long enough for my children to grow up and enjoy a good life. Mr. Wright believes that someone has been sniffing too many "flying magic bunny rainbow farts." I believe that his diagnosis may be correct, though I am not sure he has identified the correct patient. Don't let it be you!

Flying mint bunny is farting sparkles and rainbows! 

"Peace love and understanding tell me

Is there no place for them today?

They say we must fight to keep our freedom

But Lord, there’s got to be a better way

"War what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing…" 

- Edwin Starr, “War” 1969

Attributions:
Flying Mint Bunny is a copyright of Hidekaz Himaruya
Mr. Wright's post was published by Americans Against the Tea Party (AATTP)
Wikipedia offers these notes about Edwin Starr's version of the iconic anti-war song quoted herein.

Criticize with Kindness

How to Criticize with Kindness: 

Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the Four Steps to Arguing Intelligently

via Brain Pickings:

Dennett synthesizes the steps:

How to compose a successful critical commentary:

1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

If only the same code of conduct could be applied to critical commentary online, particularly to the indelible inferno of comments from anonymous hoi polloi.

Daniel C. Dennett, b. 1942

Missing the Point

I like these snarky som(ee)cards as much as the next fellow. To be certain, some are a good deal funnier than others. A few are down right odd. By and large, the modus operandi is absurdity wrapped in irony laced with a heavy dose of sacrasm. And I get that.

But I am not a fan of today's Earth Day joke. I am writing to register my extreme indignation. Earth Day is about us, the inhabitants of Earth, showing a little appreciation for our habitat. It's not about what we can get for ourselves. It's about our attitude of gratitude for what we already have.

The author of this joke implies that recycling is futile. How many cans must one recycle to pay for even ONE gallon of gas at $4/gallon? Meh, why bother recycling at all? hahaha

This is Missing the Point by a c-o-u-n-t-r-y  m-i-l-e.

People do save nickles but personal gain is not the sole reason for recycling. I reduce my consumption, reuse things that still have utility, and recycle things I no longer need. I encourage my children and my friends and neighbors to do the same. These activities do not make money, per se, but they do slow my consumption a bit, and they increase my mindfulness a bit, and they make me just a bit more respectful of Mother Earth. 

In my community, sorting recycled metal, glass, and paper material is a wonderful jobs program for some folks who need gainful employment. So not only do I not make a nickle per can, but I actually pay a bit to have someone else collect and sort the items I set out by the curb. And that is a very good thing.

One can count the nickles from recycled cans. I have no problem with that, and the nickles do add up. But: 

• How about using fewer cans and bottles in the first place? Refillable canteens are great!
• How about burning less carbon-based fuel? Public transport, bike share, walking!
• How about focusing our snark on wasteful and truly futile behaviors? (Name your own faves.)
• How about encouraging more folks to live lightly and love deeply, especially on Earth Day.  

My $0.02

DBD

American Ineffectualism

I invite your attention to the following article which was published in the online edition of the National Review. My reaction follows, and your comments are encouraged.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 4:00 PM

American Ineffectualism 
Every American ally is cringing with embarrassment at the amateurishness of the last month. 

By Mark Steyn

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358480/american-ineffectualism-mark-steyn/


While I was entertained by Mr. Steyn's pugilistic style, I felt his substance was a little skewed. Admittedly, I was embarrassed at how our government appeared to be playing checkers in a chess tournament. Obviously, people like Putin and Steyn saw weakness, and pounced. 

However, I do not fully appreciate Steyn's glorification of Putin's "blueberry" crushing skills. Putin is an opportunistic thug who completely ignored his own past so he could assume a moral high ground and mockingly lecture my President. 

The balls! Or should I say, the blueberries!?! 

At any rate, I admire Senator John McCain for standing up to Putin. His comeback is combative and spot-on. My country, right or wrong? No, I won't go that far. As a Nation, we must be willing to learn from our mistakes. My attitude is more like this: I can talk bad about MY family, but if YOU say one mean thing about ANY of them. I will personally knock your block off! 

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/19-09-2013/125705-McCain_for_pravda_ru-0/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/mccain-sharply-criticizes-putin.html?_r=0
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-pravda-op-ed-vladimir-putin-nyt-new-york-times-2013-9

New SHARP director says Army must defeat sexual assault to maintain public trust

Public trust in the Army is high. To maintain that trust, the Army must defeat sexual assault in its ranks.
Attribution: Photo and caption are from the original 22 Aug 2013 article by C. Todd Lopez at www.army.mil 

I just read this article and I find it encouraging. Cheers for Dr. Altendorf and the new Army SHARP Office!

Obviously bringing a General Officer-level leader to the SHARP helm raises program visibility--as well as  expectations. Fortunately, the increased attention is going to integration--horizontally with Provost Marshal General and Inspector General (as well as previously involved Criminal Investigation Command, Army Medical Command, and the Office of the Judge Advocate General), and vertically with the Department of Defense and through them with the other services. This portends well.

Lots more work to do, but the language of “defeat” sexual assault is much more productive than the unrealistic “eliminate.” I also like “maintain” trust which communicates that we are at risk of losing trust, not conceding that is already lost and must be won back. Subtle changes but powerful. We still do a lot of things right in the Army.

As a 28-year veteran, my heart burns about this problem, but I am not ready to hand the solution over to those who, like Sen. Gillibrand, would dismantle the Army to “save” it. God bless her for putting more pressure on the services, but her proposed solutions would be counter-productive in my humble and biased opinion.

Culture change is the goal, and the standard is when parents concerned about their children joining the Army are neutral on the  question of blue-on-blue sexual violence—not because the human beings in the military are suddenly angels but because rape is once again less likely to occur in the military than any other possible place where their son or daughter might go instead.  

Back in the old days, when the purpose of the Army was to fight and win our Nation's wars, parents’ biggest concern about sending their kids off to the Army was that their learning how to kill people, break things, and dodge bullets would scar them for life.  I am sure that some victims of military sexual violence would contend that not all scars are the same.

It is my hope that Dr. Altendorf will engage data-fueled, truth-seeking, action-oriented researchers and analysts to help solve this problem.

Thanks for reading.

When the Solution is Worse than the Problem

You have seen the news, right?

Maddow Blog | gillibrand-bill-on-military-sexual-assaults-gets-gop-backers
USA Today | gillibrand-bill-creates-broad-diverse-coalition
The Diane Rehm Show | prosecuting-military-sexual-assault-cases

Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) is articulate, and her bill to remove authority from commanders has gained allies in respected conservatives Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, but here’s the deal. Would she, as a Senator, support transferring authority to the military for maintaining good order and discipline within Congress? Would she want Army lawyers (who may know little about the culture of Congress but a lot about order and discipline) to come into the Senate and decide how to investigate and prosecute allegations of misconduct among legislators? I doubt it.

And we all know there is plenty of misconduct among legislators. But let us not digress.

Gillibrand wants to set up a system that, in her own words, caters to the needs of victims. In the United States of America, that is unconstitutional. The phrase I am thinking of is, "Innocent until proven guilty." Even if Gillibrand’s bill passes the Senate, it will not pass the Republican-led House, and even if for some reason it did pass and the President signed it into law, the Supreme Court would strike it down. Excuse me, “should” strike it down.

 

Why can’t we concentrate on what really matters in the military sexual assault epidemic?

• Crucify the commanders who abuse their authority by failing to seek and uphold justice—don’t punish ALL commanders for the faults and failings of a few.
• Crush the perpetrators who use sexual violence as a weapon in an abusive power play—don’t punish victims by not prosecuting allegations, and don’t punish non-perpetrators by subjecting them to hours and hours of PowerPoint lectures. And do not merely discharge these perps, passing the unresolved problem onto society at large!
• A relatively small number of serial perpetrators are committing crimes. Is anyone asking why they perpetrate? What are the underlying causes of sexually violent behavior? What is being done to address the conditions that lead to this reprehensible behavior? Or are we just going to play “sociopath vs. system” games? Prosecution is pandering.
• Are 100% of all incidents reported? If so, good. If not, why not and what is being done? Here is where Gillibrand scores her strongest points. Incidents are way under-reported. The reasons victims do not report are linked to embarrassment, fear of reprisals, and mistrust of the chain of command. Again, these obstacles are real and they must be breached.
• Are the overall numbers of incidents declining? This is hard to measure because of the reporting error, but in any case the goal of "eliminating" sexual assault is unrealistic. Decreasing the numbers of incidents is good, especially if all incidents are being reported and not merely swept under the rug. Decreasing incident rates to a level below society at large is good enough. Getting to zero is a noble goal but a horrible objective.

The military’s approach has not been successful, by definition. If it were successful, we would not have a sexual assault problem in the military. Defending the status quo is not a successful strategy, as was amply demonstrated during the recent testimony of our Nation's senior military leaders before the Senate Armed Services Committee. So, retool or start over? This is a momentous question. If retool, then Gillibrand and her ilk are the enemy of the finest fighting force the world has ever known. They agitate for wholesale change of something they do not understand, even as they control the purse strings. The military leadership had better stay ahead of Gillibrand and retool. If the leaders lose to those who listen to Gillibrand and are forced to start over, we will watch as Congress dismantles the military.

 

Dismantle the military? Yes, I am not exaggerating. Consider this scenario. You, dear reader, are now an armor battalion commander in battle. You receive a report that one of your tank commanders is accused of angrily throwing a cup of coffee at a subordinate. Some of the coffee lands in the junior person’s mouth. Incredibly, this assault with battery meets the legal standard for rape, since there was force and penetration. The Brigade Combat Team attacks at dawn and you need all of your battalion's physical and mental resources for the fight. What do you do, Colonel?

• If you investigate the allegation immediately, you lose the victim and tank commander, and therefore his crew and his tank, for the battle. Oh, and your investigating officer is probably your XO or S3!
• If you defer the investigation, you send a signal that it’s OK to throw coffee at people, so long as one is sufficiently provoked, or if the battle starts at dawn, or it was just horse-play, etc. And the subordinate probably deserved it. And oh, by the way, how can you win a battle with people who are afraid of violence? Derp!
• You'd like to think of this as a relatively insignificant incident compared to battle, but you cannot, because the same Congress that sent you into harm's way also said that all allegations of rape must be investigated by an external board.

Why not just hand the whole matter off to some of Gillibrand’s lawyers?  Wouldn't that relieve you of the effort? Why is that a monumentally bad idea? Because if YOU cannot handle this little situation, Colonel, or at least be seen as handling it, and if it must go to an outside authority to be resolved, then how in the world can you lead your battalion in combat, or even be seen as leading effectively in the bigger issue of battle where many more lives are at stake?

The claim can be made that rapes would never occur in a battalion commanded by a leader who had no tolerance for such abuse. And I have two comments to that. First, toxic commanders, such as those who do not see rape as a "significant" problem or perhaps are even part of the problem, are identified and removed. Secondly, the perpetrators of sexual violence are hard to identify. Don't gloss over that point. These serial predators are sociopaths who are very adept and remaining hidden. It's not as if finding them were a simple task. Therefore, rapes happen in battalions regardless of a commander's leadership qualities.


That said, it's obvious that strong leadership, culture change, new policies, effective training, investigative persistence, and judicial resolve are all part of the solution to the scourge of blue-on-blue sexual violence. I personally believe that the military has the wherewithal to solve this problem internally. I personally believe that Gillibrand and McCaskill (D-MO) do their part when they hold a mirror up to the military.  That's all they have to do! The threat of removing convening authority is over-reach. Would these same legislators, upset over the actions of a few Catholic priests or a few college football coaches start changing laws to dictate how the Catholic church or the NCAA may govern themselves?

 

One final thought, dear reader--and by the way, thanks for playing the role of a battalion commander in this post. As you know, the military exists to fight and win our Nation’s wars. Any parent who sends a son or daughter off to your tank battalion and expects you to protect that young person even if it means losing the battle is either living in a fantasy land or possibly working on Sen. Gillibrand's staff. Rape is unacceptable. Rape inside a family or a high performing team is especially harmful because it not only damages the victim, but it damages the whole unit. I do not minimize the problem of military sexual trauma. I just bristle when people who have never been anywhere close to the Battalion Commander scenario described above take it upon themselves to solve the problem with no comprehension of the second and third order effects.

 

Senator Gillibrand's solution of removing convening authority from military commanders and giving it instead to an outside judicial system is a solution worse than the problem.