No Place for Hate

Disappointment. Frustration. Astonishment. Or any other number of descriptions about one's reaction to a particular person's behavior...but not Hate.

Hate denies a person calm, deliberative, rational thought.

The enormity of the Administration's culpability is almost beyond calculation, but hatred will prevent that calculation from occurring. If the calculation cannot occur, it cannot be part of a solution.

Don't hate.

Think.

Mr. Bush
Politics

Sphere: Related Content

Is there a reason why...

...the United States is still following its policies of eradication realtive to hard drugs emanating from places like Colombia and Afghanistan?

Over the weekend, for instance, a news item mentioned that the record tonnage of poppies in Afghanistan are worth 3 billion dollars in illegal funds.

Wouldn't it be cost effective if we were to spend 3 billions to pay Afghani farmers not to grow poppies? Don't we spend that much paying farmers in our own farming areas, particularly the South, not to grow certain crops?

War on Drugs
Farm Subsidies
Afghanistan

Sphere: Related Content

Tempest in a Teapot? Or Sac?

If you want to have insight into one of America's social problems, just jump over to "With One Word, Children's Book Sets Off Uproar" over at the New York Times.

Elementary school librarians all over the country are clucking about scrotum. Yep. Scrotum. Not images of chainsaw carrying murderers in newspaper ads, not screaming nymphs and decapitated Lotharios in television ads, Scrotum!--that most dangerous word to the peace and security of the nation.

It happens there's a new children's book, The Higher Power of Lucky, which has an early sentence which tells of an unlucky dog who'd been bitten on the scrotum by a rattlesnake.

According to the Times' Julie Bosman, this word has caused a virtual censorship of the book, even though it has won the Newberry Medal, a prestigious honor for children's literature.

It seems librarians and elementary school teachers don't want to have to explain the word to the children in their charge.

One librarian from Colorado gave Ms Bosman this quote, "“I don’t want to start an issue about censorship, but you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature. At least not for children.”

And why not? Mightn't some of our psycho-sexual social problems be mitigated with an early education about words which more formally identify various parts of the "genitalia?" Wouldn't it be better for children if they knew scrotum rather than nuts or balls? Vagina rather than pussy or (pardon me) the c-word?

In this time of "culture war" (a term used by the disingenuous right), isn't it better to have everyone know, and be able to use, acceptable language for all parts of the human body?

Over 40 years ago, a toddler nephew decided to "streak" the family at a Sunday dinner. His older brother, then about 5, shreiked with laughter, "I saw his penis!" I was momentarily stunned--"penis?!?" Then I thought my nephews were certainly on an easier path than the one set by my parents when I was told to be sure to "Wash your monk."

Elementary school librarians, in these times of heightened awareness are not to be faulted in this brouhaha. It's the responsibility of parents to help their children navigate the many paths to adulthood. A more judicious use of the language in speaking to children about the body would be a good place to focus attention. It would also help librarians to do their jobs.

Censorship
Sex Ed
Culture Wars

Sphere: Related Content

"I'm entitled!" "Oh, yeah?"

One of the more interesting effects of the recent growth in monetary entitlements and of ego-boosting self-esteem is the sense of being entitled to be taken seriously.

Over in one of my favorite blogs, Gay Conservative Liberal, a couple of people who engage with GCL, and who are not very liberal, constantly ask questions about proving this or that assertion made by another commentor (actually, commentor doesn't appear in my dictionary, but commentator seems a bit too formal for somebody offering a comment in the "comment" section of a blog; any suggestions?).

It seems a clash of the entitlements is inevitable.

You want me to respond to your question? I choose not to respond.

You insist? Feel free.

Prove your entitlement--your own self-esteem and personal rage don't count. My own entitlement trumps your entitlement.

That's my answer.

GayConservativeLiberal
Blogging
Entitlements

Sphere: Related Content

Incessant Tap Dancing Around Religion

This week in Newsweek Fareed Zakaria wrote a piece in which he delineated the role is Islam in the Sunni-Shi'a struggle in Iraq. Essentially he pointed out that until Islam goes through the equivalent of the Protestant Reformation vis a vis Christianity there will be no lasting peace in the "western world."

Religions, like all institutions, are not cast in concrete from the instigation. As people change in their understanding of behavior and nature, religions change. Some changes are subtle, some are revolutionary. Change, though, is inevitable.

Islam is going to change and eventually the verses which allow for murderous interpretations will be relegated to virtual unimportance, just as violent verses of Judaism and Christianity have become interesting artifacts of a long passed society.

Unfortunately, some pundits of the right took a single phrase from Zakaria's work and work themselves into a slather of dispute.

Christopher Hitchens in Slate.com partakes in the discussion. It seems the war supporting pundits are fixated on the facts of the blundering treatment of the Middle East by the Europeans and Americans of the 20th century, not to mention the centuries long rivalry between various Islamic sects. A sense of history is fine, but that was not Zakaria's point.

Zakaria is telling us to do whatever we can to encourage the quick reformation of Islam.

It would be nice if the right and the left would take Zakaria's suggestion to heart and devise a strategy which would assist moderate Muslims in this very important development of their religion.

Christopher Hitchens
Fareed Zakaria
Religion

Sphere: Related Content

When Losing Is Almost Better

In today's New York Times, one can read about a particular marvel of advertising which can give you a glow.

The story, by Lee Jenkins (thank you, Lee), details what happens to the Super Bowl winners' paraphenalia which was manufactured before the Super Bowl is played. It's shipped to a remote village in an undeveloped area. 288 caps and T-shirts emblazoned with the losing team's name and identity as the winning team, are off on a journey to someplace. “Where these items go, the people don’t have electricity or running water.”

Check out the heartwarming story. By the time you get to the last sentence, There, and only there, the losers get to be winners, you'll have gained a new respect for the N.F.L.
Super Bowl
Lee Jenkins

Sphere: Related Content

Authorization passed by Congress in 2002

In case you haven't read the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)", it's located here.

Here is the text. See what they voted "for." And what they did not vote for. (There's a lot more to it than authorization for "war.")

--H.J.Res.114--
H.J.Res.114
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

Iraqi War
War Authorization

Sphere: Related Content

Religious Texts and "Terror"

At some point the Muslim clerics must tackle the problem of the surahs which are clearly political in nature or totally metaphorical, and they must somehow vitiate those writings.

Let us hope that "point" is soon.


Religion

Sphere: Related Content

Not only "sad," but alarming

With apologies to John Greenleaf Whittier and "Maud Muller:"

...the saddest words of tongue or pen are these [few] words...
"I'm the decider."
"I'm the decision maker."

Alas.

Can one imagine any other president saying these words?

Faux testosterone just doesn't cut it.

Mr. Bush

Sphere: Related Content

Testosterone--the great equalizer?

The New York Times today (1/26/07) has an editorial ("More Willful Indifference") in which it wags a finger at the FBI's handling of early indications of Mark Foley's predilections for late teenagers.

A very interesting sentence reads, Now it turns out that the F.B.I. was just as phlegmatic about the scandal as Mr. Foley’s Republican colleagues.

Phlegmatic. That can be interpreted as "So?" Don't most men have an appreciative eye for young adults? My barber in Los Angeles once remarked, "School's starting up again soon, isn't it? I like the beginning of school. Lots of young stuff walking by."

Lesson: non-gays and gays share the same sex urgings. Urgings which are not acted upon are relatively normal among the male of the species.

An objective response between males to the appreciation of young adults is "So?"

One wonders, then, why the outrage at the Times.

Denial?

To appropriate the slogan: We've come a long way, baby.

New York Times
Mark Foley
Sexuality

Sphere: Related Content

The Andy and Sam Show

Two cultural commentators are having a bit of a to do over the web. Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris are having a back and forth about religion. Andrew believes but has doubts, Sam does not believe, and seems to have absolutely no doubts about Andrew's doubts. You can catch Andrew's January 25 sally here.

So far there seemingly has not been a thorough discussion of the anthropomorphization of the deity, and that is a subject which is actually central to all religious debates.

The scriptural texts, when they refer to the deity, are written in metaphorical language. These metaphors assign human qualities, good and bad, to the deity.

It is beyond logic for us to continue to assign to the deity such personality quirks as pimping--72 virgins in Paradise; or ethnic cleansing--most of the Old Testament. How very near to blasphemy is the concept that the deity is jealous? (No other gods before me.) Or petty? The farmer's sacrifice is not as worthy as the herdsman's? It's a metaphor. If you eat pork, and don't cook it enough, you'll die. And all this before the knowledge of how much heat it takes to kill the trichinae.

C'mon, Sam and Andy. Get serious. Rinse out the metaphors and see what remains; then get on with your discussion.
Andrew Sullivan
Sam Harris
Religion

Sphere: Related Content

Habeas for Habeas?

Is it Orwell or Carroll? On January 18, 2007, the Attorney General of the United States, testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

Now, Section 9 of Article 1 contains the following: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Somehow Gonzales interprets this section to mean that something you don't necessarily have cannot be taken away from you.

Senator Spector suggested that Mr. Gonazles was on the verge of violating "common sense." One would be hard pressed, unless one is a member of the administration, to disagree with Mr. Spector.

The virtual trips to Oceania and Wonderland continue.

Alberto Gonzales
Habeas Corpus
Bush Administration

Sphere: Related Content

Neo-Cons and Defeat

What is it with the neo-con/Bush sycophants and their love for defeat? Redeployment isn't defeat.

If we engaged in the ideological struggle of the century, then we also need to struggle with philosophy and logic as well as with armed forces.

So far, there has been precious little attention paid to the underlying support for the murders and terrorist tactics: religious texts which can be interpreted to reward bloodletting in the name of a deity.

We have to re-think the whole approach to this struggle, include religious texts in our planning, and, while we're rethinking, it would be wise to redeploy our troops to a less vulnerable position, and thus save them for a later possible armed conflict.

One is not defeated if one wages war wisely. One observes, plans, and buys time for the most propitious moment.

Stop with defeat already. It isn't over until it's over; just ask the "defeated" Taliban in Afghanistan.
Neo-Cons
Iraq
Defeatism
Religion

Sphere: Related Content

Left/Right/Fiddle/Burn

Too much is being made of our military action in Iraq, and not enough of the action in Afghanistan or on the mis-named "war." That is a grave deflection of attention from the future we face.

We are not at war with terrorists; we are at war with Islamic extremists.

If President Bush had finished the job in Afghanistan, the premise of this war would be more accurate . By diluting the attention of the nation from the Islamic jihadists onto a secular despot, Mr. Bush has embroiled the U.S. in a Sunni-Shi'ite centuries-old struggle. While this sectarian strife might be in our interests down the line, it is taking up too much of our energy; and it is not the true enemy. It is a symptom, but not the disease.

The Islamic Brotherhood of Egypt and others of its nature are small, but deadly. They pledge to "struggle" until Islam is the only religion in the world.

Thus, the United States must expand the "theaters" of the war to include ideology and education. The ideas in "holy" writings which allow for mayhem and murder in the name of a Supreme Being must be purged.

Focusing only on military encounters is delaying our inevitable success over the jihadists.

Until the leadership and those who influence opinion in the United States face this Islamic jihadist threat, we will gain no ground. While these influential persons fiddle away their influence hurling deprecations at each other, the "Rome" of our 21st Century war of ideology burns.

The U.S. battle may be against "terrorism" in Iraq, but the war is against the ideology of religious extremism.

Success in Iraq will only open the way to the next battle, for which we are not, nor does it seem that we will soon be, prepared.

Pundits
War on Terror
Religious Extremism

Sphere: Related Content

The Execution and Erudition

Andrew Sullivan links to Stephen Bainbridge's blog in which Bainbridge shares some thoughts on execution which have been developed by leading Roman Catholic thinkers.

It's erudition; it's fascinating reading. (There's a difference between revenge and retribution which I find a bit precious, but probably defensible.)

In the final analysis, though, the point discussed in the last Logorrhea posting, is not discussed by Bainbridge.

Somehow, somewhere, unless he was a sociopath from birth, Hussein learned a lesson which allowed him to make decisions which ultimately led to the gallows. Societies need to learn how to spot the dangerous lesson, and we need to learn how to undo the damage they cause.

Until that time, executions will continue, and they are, nevertheless, evidence of social failure. We are diminished by the death penalty.

Death Penalty
Saddam Hussein

Sphere: Related Content

Justice? Revenge? Diminishment?

John Donne wrote: "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Saddam Hussein's execution has diminished us all. There is no disagreement with the various arguments for his death--justice, revenge, deserved. The point is that ultimately his death is evidence of the sad state of human social development.

Any time any person dies at the hands of another, acting alone or in concert with social mores, we have an example of social failure.

At some point, decisions are made which lead to the murder, the execution. What we need to do is to construct more just societies so that these decisions are never made.

It won't be easy.

It will take a determined effort, but the bells continue to toll. We may be justified in our eyes, but we are still diminished.
Death Penalty
Saddam Hussein

Sphere: Related Content

#6, as Well as Heather, Has Two Mommies

The AP has a story related to the Cheney's 6th grandchild. It's pretty much the standard happy grandmother info.

There's only one thing missing. While the article, "Cheney Happy About Daughter's Pregnancy," mentions Heather Poe, Mary's partner, Granny Lynne doesn't mention her daughter's partner of 15 years in the quoted text.

Heather goes from having Two Mommies, to being one of two mommies; literary Lynne seems to have missed a golden opportunity.

"Mary and Heather will be great moms," should've been the operative quote.

Maybe next year.
Lynne Cheney
Mary Cheney
Republicans

Sphere: Related Content

Wars and Battles Fought Therein

The right wing nut punditry is having a field day trying to talk the American public into acknowledging a "loss" of the Iraqi conflict.

Take, for instance, Emmett Terrell's piece in townhall.com, "Bust the joint up." It's little bit of puffery for the ovines who read Townhall for solace.

While casting usual aspersions upon Senator Ted Kennedy (what would they do without him?), Terrell writes, "The Democrats' abandonment of this war..."

Um, Em, baby, non, non, mon petit choufleur. No Democratic Party member has ever said this "war" is lost.

The common cant of the right is that the "war" is in Iraq. The Iraqi element of this "war" on terrorists is but a "theater of operations."

Like so many of the United States' wars in the past, this one, too, has had missteps in its beginnings. This particular battle has been a tragic miscalculation from its inception--ersatz cowboys playing cinematic heroes.

The war itself, however, is far from lost, and, in total agreement with President Bush, it is a war which we must win.

We just need someone with the smarts and the leadership to accomplish that victory.

It's time for the right wingers to acknowledge their misplaced trust (after all, it was for a tax cut in the first place--no one ever expected him to wage a war!), and work with knowledgeable people--people who have a wide perspective of the entire situation, societal make-up included--and help America gird the loins for the long struggle.
Emmett Terrell
Townhall.com
Iraqi War

Sphere: Related Content

Apt or Inapt--What's a Metaphor to Do?

I often chide my English teacher acquaintances (and myself, after some 35 years of doing just that) about the thought processes of the general public. At times I worry about that.

For instance, how many people really understand the concept of metaphor? How many people stop to think about a metaphor which has become a cliche?

As a quickie posting, let me discuss two: 1) the good shepherd, and 2) waving a red flag at a bull.

The religious shepherd has long since been a favorite of mine as a truly inapt metaphor for a community of believers. The shepherd protects the herd from the ravages of the world, right? Right. If one were to ponder the idea just a bit beyond the cuddly lamb in the shepherd's arms, though, mustn't one ask what the shepherd gets and what the sheep really get?

The sheep get shorn, to start. Finally, one asks how many sheep, exactly, die of old age? Whence lamb chops? Mutton? Hmmm.

Actually, the shepherd is "protecting" the sheep from the wolf for his own benefit; anything accruing to the sheep is, in the long run, minimal.

Someone recently said that certain statements made by Islamic extremists were similar to these people waving a red flag at Mr. Bush, and that he might be justified in taking military action against them. Before we jump into the fray, however, let's also look at that metaphor a bit more closely.

What is the purpose of the red flag? We get the metaphor from the bull fights of our Hispanic neighbors, and the flag, cape, in their instance, is used to distract the bull by focusing his attention on the cape's movement. The bull theoretically doesn't notice the sword cleverly hidden behind the flag/cape, much to his eventual sorrow.

The one who waves that red cloth usually ends up finishing off the bull. Very seldom is the bull successful. Metaphorically, then, it is a mistake to encourage Mr. Bush to "charge" at a red flag of vituperation. It could well not turn out well for the U.S. for whom Mr. Bush, metaphorically, substitutes.

Wolf 0, Sheep 0, Shepherd 100
Bull 0 (most of the time), Flag/cape waver 100 (most of the time)

Shepherds seem to get the better deal.

Rather than being a bull or even a bull fighter, we should aspire to be metaphorical shepherds, keeping the wolf away and keeping the spoils for ourselves.

By the way, the next time a preacher speaks of loving shepherds, look to your wallets, my ovine compatriots. It's shearing time.

Metaphors
Mr. Bush
English Teachers
Education

Sphere: Related Content

Remember the "Oral Sex" lamentations of the late 90's?

During the Clinton impeachment brouhaha, Mary Bono, R-Palm Springs, lamented, "What will I tell my children?" And that's when we were all sniggering about oral sex being in the news.

Now Slate.com led me to this link where a Washington Post writer, Alan Cooperman, pens this line: "But a third answer allows same-sex ceremonies and ordination of gay men and lesbians, while maintaining a ban on anal sex."

Catch that? Anal sex is now a fit topic for discussion in the nation's newspapers.

It's contained in a story about how "A panel of rabbis gave permission Wednesday for same-sex commitment ceremonies and ordination of gays within Conservative Judaism..." Conservative Jews, it seems, have decided to enter the 21st century.

Bono must really be in a pickle. Except her son is now at U.S.C., and her daughter is in high school. Maybe she won't have to have to worry about that discussion, after all.

I heard the phrase on NPR this morning; I wonder if mothers leapt to turn off radios playing in the kitchen.

Relax, parents. Your kids will find out somewhere else. Or maybe they'll grow up anyway and go to U.S.C.

Conservative Jews
Sex Talk
Sex Education

Sphere: Related Content