Writing Prompt #8: Come up with a mathematical formula to express something you know/believe. (Example: Long Saturday run + Frappuccino = Happiness.)

Logic + values = wisdom

“Logic, logic, logic . . . logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.”

-Spock

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

I’ve long argued that logic does not exist in a void. There is no such thing as pure, objective logic. Logic has to start somewhere.

In scientific fields, that starting point is relatively easy. Logic begins with observations. Sir Isaac Newton studies Johannes Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and used logic to deduce that those same laws must apply to the Moon’s orbit around the Earth and also to all objects on the Earth, such as the (possibly apocryphal) apple that fell from the tree. Jean-Francois Champollion used logic to compare the Greek text on the Rosetta Stone to the Egyptian hieroglyphics on the same stone to decipher the ancient Egyptians’ written language. Logic is a method of drawing conclusions from observations, but it always needs something to start with.

Spock’s statement at the top of the page has its roots in a Biblical passage, Proverbs 9:10, which states “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” but its use in Star Trek VI is in many ways the opposite of its use in the Bible. The passage in Proverbs calls the reader to look to the Lord, first and foremost, for knowledge. However, in the context of the film, Spock’s use of the phrase is an admonishment to his protégé, Valeris, to regard logic as only the beginning of the path to wisdom, and to look beyond logic for further enlightenment.

Logic does not exist in a void.

Logic springs forth from observations in the scientific world, but in terms of a society, logic springs forth from values. Every society, consciously or not, makes decisions about what it values and holds dear. Every society is based on a set of beliefs, sometimes religious in nature and sometimes now.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”

-Thomas Jefferson

The Declaration of Independence (1776)

This was how Thomas Jefferson, on behalf of the brand-new United States, answered one of the most important questions of anyone’s life: “Who are you?”

The answer to that question is what we base our logic on. What we believe and what we value sets us to reach logical conclusions, but those conclusions can be wildly different from one person to the next depending on how they answer that question. There is no such thing as pure, perfect logic because there is no such thing as a pure, perfect person. That’s why it’s so important to think carefully about the decisions we make and the conclusions we reach; it’s vitally important that we reach them based on the values that are truly important to us.

The Horror of War

“There’s only one truth about war: people die.” 

 -Richard Brinsley Sheridan

 

“Because it's not a game, Kate. This is a scale model of war. Every war ever fought right there in front of you. Because it's always the same. When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know whose children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken! How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill until everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning -- sit down and talk!”

-Peter Harness & Steven Moffat

Today is the day the United States attacked Iran and set off a series of retaliatory strikes around the region. It’s still too early have any kind of reliable figure for casualties, but there are reports of both military and civilian targets being hit on both sides. The final numbers will be in the hundreds, at least. And it’s not likely to end with today.

I don’t have a whole lot to say on the subject other than I can’t imagine how we even got here. Again. Just like Iraq in 2003, there was no clear and present danger, no need for immediate, aggressive action. There was no need for anyone to die. No, it seems clear to anyone observing that the true purpose of this is to redirect attention from an ongoing scandal at home that the administration wants to go away. And so we’re at war. Criticism of our leaders will, of course, be discouraged “in this time of emergency”. Domestic inquiries will be put on the back burner. Attention will be redirected with the expectation that everyone rally around a common cause.

And I’m left wondering how we keep falling for the same trick over and over again.

The Legend of Hillary Clinton

Earlier today, someone asked why Republicans seem to hate Hillary Clinton so much. “From what I’ve seen in the last day, the hatred seems rooted in racism, misogyny and . . . jealousy,” they said. It’s completely out of proportion to anything she’s ever said or done.

I have a different take on it.

I think Hillary Clinton is the very personification of feminism to many conservatives. She won’t sit down. She won’t shut up. She won’t be disrespected. And she won’t “know her place”.

It's undeniable that there have been many accomplished, professional women of both parties who became prominent in government and politics after her, but there's a compelling case to be made that she was the first. Hillary was a household name before Condoleezza Rice, before Elizabeth Dole, before Sarah Palin, before Kamala Harris, and before our current cast of right-wing mouthpieces whose main qualifications seem to be complete and total obedience to their boss. Hillary came along at a time when the most popular woman on television was Roseanne Barr and the portrayal of Murphy Brown as both a successful, professional reporter and a single mother was something audiences were still coming to grips with.

When Bill was elected in 1992, there was still a significant glass ceiling that prevented women from holding positions of authority or prominence in politics, let alone in the White House. Hillary was a force to be reckoned with in her own right, not just as First Lady, but as an accomplished lawyer and political activist at a time when first ladies were expected (particularly by conservatives) to conform to the role of demure, supportive wife and homemaker. She even had her own office in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Oval Office, and actively participated in policy discussions and decisions.

In 1992, Nancy Reagan was the ideal image of first ladies in conservative circles, and Hillary was nothing like her. She wore pantsuits instead of skirts. She wanted to leave a mark on the world all her own. And in doing so, she earned the eternal ire of conservatives, an ire that has only grown and taken on a life of its own in the years since, leading to some truly spectacular myths about pizzeria basements that didn’t exist and child cannibalism that never happened. What she did do was successfully run for a United States Senate seat, accept a position as Secretary of State, and then very nearly mounted a successful run for President of the United States, three unforgiveable sins as far as conservatives are concerned.

She doesn’t deserve anywhere near the amount of hate and disdain that gets thrown at her by conservatives, but the unfortunate truth is that it was always bound to happen to whichever woman decided to push those boundaries first. To her credit, Hillary has never once backed down from or tried to avoid the mostly fictitious “controversies” that have surrounded her. She’s always been direct, to-the-point, and fearless. She doesn’t deserve the way she’s been treated, but she’s shouldered it admirably, and for that she’ll always have my respect.

Pax et Justitia

Recently, I’ve been reading a lot of comics. I’m a Marvel guy—outside of Batman, DC has never held much interest for me—so I started with some relatively modern runs on The Amazing Spider-Man and Avengers and Thunderbolts. Eventually, I remembered how much I enjoyed some older stuff, too. Years ago, guys like Jim Starlin and Roy Thomas and Steve Englehart were among some of my favorite writers. I won’t go through the entire progression that led me there, but ultimately I went back as far as the Kree/Skrull War (1971) and the First Thanos War (1972).

These are comics from an entirely different age and social order than modern comics. I’ve read some of it before, but I had forgotten how deeply ingrained the anti-war and civil rights movements were in many of those stories. I think a lot of purported “fans” of that age either remember those stories through the lens of their current political beliefs or never really read or understood them in the first place. These were hardly conservative stories and they assumed their audience was sophisticated enough to understand real-world conflicts.

Until 1972, Stan Lee was the editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics. Starting sometime in the 60s, he wrote a monthly column called Stan’s Soapbox that appeared in all their publications. Usually, he talked about behind-the-scenes anecdotes and goings-on around the office. He sometimes celebrated and brought recognition to specific creators or titles, and he generally tried to form a personal connection with readers that went beyond the stuffy persona of being the boss.

In December of 1968, Stan wrote a Soapbox that made Marvel’s position on civil rights and equality absolutely crystal clear. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy had both been assassinated in the preceding year, and George Wallace was the vocal champion of racial segregation nation-wide. Race riots were everywhere on the news, and law enforcement was deploying tear gas against protestors with abandon. In the midst of this, Stan spoke about real-world issues to his mostly young audience. He didn’t hide behind fantasy or metaphors, and he didn’t pretend that his readers were too young to know about such things.

“Bigotry and racism are among the deadliest social ills plaguing the world today,” he wrote. “The only way to destroy them is to expose them — to reveal them for the insidious evils they really are.”

These were not words lightly written or published. Stan was risking a massive backlash in such a politically charged time. Like today, sides were polarized, anger was rampant, and there seemed no hope of compromise. Marvel could have easily faced financial catastrophe at the hands of angry parents and political figures who didn’t want their children indoctrinated into beliefs they didn’t share. But Stan felt it was too important an issue to stay on the sidelines. The stories he wrote in the 60s had spoken his mind loud and clear for anyone who paid attention, but now he spoke up in full print, not just handwritten word balloons.

“Although anyone has the right to dislike an individual, it’s totally irrational, patently insane to condemn an entire race — to despise an entire nation — to vilify an entire religion.”

That’s powerful stuff, not just for a kid to read in a comic book, but for anyone watching as American society seemed to be at war with itself in 1968. I think Stan needed to get his thoughts out there for his own mental health just as much as his readers needed to hear it. And lest anyone dismiss these as the ramblings of a naive fool, don’t forget that in 1968 Stan was a middle-aged man of 44 years. Stan was hardly a hippie, but he knew right from wrong and that was something that pervaded his comic book work his entire life.

So for anyone who thinks Marvel is too “woke” (a term I saw used to describe the Marvel Cinematic Universe just this morning), I’d like to say this: I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. I don’t think you truly understand the people who built that universe, from Stan Lee and Jack Kirby to Roy Thomas and Steve Englehart and Jim Starlin and on and on. I think you’re remembering those stories through the lens of the way you wish they had been, the way they fit comfortably into your modern, conservative opinions of today. I think you’re having trouble wrapping your brain around the idea that you’re the bad guys Stan was writing about back then.

“Pax et Justitia,” Stan signed off with. “Peace and justice.” I’m sorry to say that almost 60 years later, we’re still having those same arguments, and still fighting that same fight.

Scam Phone Calls

Don't let scammers push you around or make you feel obligated to provide them with anything. They have no right to your time or information. The rules of politeness, in my opinion, usually exist to make people feel like they should cooperate, especially when one person doesn't want to or doesn't actually have to. It's really just a form of bullying.

For example, my dad apparently got a call on his landline today by someone asking for me. This person identified himself as being with the sheriff's department and said he needed to speak to me about "a legal matter". I have no idea how anyone got my dad's phone number. I freely give out my cell phone number, but I haven't listed his landline on anything other than emergency contact cards in years.

So my dad identified himself as my father and asked what the call was about. Apparently, the guy immediately got aggressive and told him "First of all, you're his father so it doesn't concern you, and second-" and that's apparently when my dad hung up on him.

It was, of course, a scam of some kind. I haven't gotten any calls on my cell phone, which is a lot easier to find if someone has my information than my dad's home phone number. On top of that, I'm sure an actual police officer would have just said they can't talk about the issue and just asked for me to call them.

But the point is: don't just start answering questions when someone calls you. Ask your own questions, first. "What's this about?" is not out of line, and just because someone tells you on the phone that they're with the sheriff's department doesn't mean they actually are, particularly when they don't give you a name up front.

Larger Than Life

This morning’s segment of The Intellectual Devotional was about Homer, the legendary Greek bard who is said to have lived around the 7^th Century BC. Specifically, it was about The Iliad and The Odyssey, Homer’s most well-known works.

For those who don’t know, The Iliad is an account of the Trojan War, in which the various city-states of Ancient Greece came together to make war on the City of Troy across the Aegean Sea. It follows the exploits of Achilles, a great warrior of Greek myth, and most famously gives an account of the Trojan Prince Hector’s death at Achilles’ hand. For centuries, The Iliad was thought to be wholly fictional until the city itself was discovered by a team of archaeologists in the late 1800s. While many aspects of The Iliad are undoubtedly fictional, it now seems likely that there are some broad truths to the narrative and that there likely was a war of some kind that ended with the city’s destruction.

The Odyssey focuses on the Greek hero Odysseus (for whom the story is named), at whose suggestion the famous Trojan Horse was built and the city conquered at last by the Greeks. Unlike many of the other Greek kings and generals involved, Odysseus’s trip home took many years, owing largely to his having offended the Greek God Poseidon, who continuously used his power over the seas to make Odysseus’s life miserable. He encountered a multitude of obstacles, villains, and monsters seeking to prevent his journey, ultimately killing his crew and destroying his ship. Odysseus did eventually return home only to discover his house full of suitors seeking to marry his still-faithful wife Penelope and seize control of his wealth.

I’ve been familiar with The Odyssey since I was a child. I think we read about it in elementary school sometime, but I re-read it several times after that on my own. I was aware of The Iliad as well, but it never really captured my attention, possibly because it’s the story of a war, but The Odyssey appealed to me on several levels, mostly because it was the story of someone who just wanted to go home to his family and had to fight through obstacle after obstacle to get there. In many ways, I think of it as a very early superhero story (which are really just modern myths). Odysseus is very much a precursor to characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and Captain America, just as Hercules, Achilles, Paul Bunyan, the Lone Ranger and Zorro are. We seem to have a psychological need for heroes, for people who are larger than life and who we can aspire to be like. And there’s nothing wrong with that so long as we don’t take it too literally or unquestioningly.

The Brainwashing of my Dad

No, not my dad.

The Brainwashing of my Dad is the title of a 2016 documentary written and directed by Jen Senko. It explores the rise of right-wing media and the “hardening” of conservative opinion, starting with the John Birch Society to the Ronald Reagan administration to the rise of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and up to the “present” at the time the film was made. Senko relates these broad topics through the lens of watching her own father gradually change from what she describes as a kind, generous, loving person into a much angrier, hostile person as he embraced Rush Limbaugh and Fox News in the 90s.

What was remarkable to me when I first saw it was that I remember a lot of that. I wasn’t nearly as engaged with news or politics then as I am now, but I remember listening to Rush in my dad’s car on the way to school in the mornings and deeply, deeply disliking the man. Even to my young self, he sounded like someone who got out of bed every morning and actively looked for something to be outraged about, and I found that repulsive. Why would anyone want to live like that? The adult me answers: because it makes money.

Fast forward a few years. By 1999, I was married and had my first child with a second on the way. (Yes, my first was born when I was 19 years old; that’s a subject for another time.) I was in college taking courses in (among other things) history and political science. I had also become a news junkie, and in an effort to be as objective as I could I flipped back and forth between the three major cable news channels at the time: CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Over the course of about a year, something became very clear to me: one of those channels consistently made me angrier than the other two, but for me it wasn’t because anyone told me to be outraged or angry or fed up with anything, it was because as I took more and more history and political science courses I recognized the flat-out lies coming from commentators on Fox News. I almost fell out of my chair a few times when I recognized complete fabrications presented as fact. That’s not to say I always agreed with commentators on CNN or MSNBC, but it was rare for me to hear anyone on those networks being just plain dishonest or deceitful. I couldn’t say the same thing about Fox.

It was then that my now-ex-wife gave me possibly the only good piece of advice she ever did. “If it makes you so angry,” she asked, “why do you keep watching it?”

I didn’t know what to say. I didn’t have a good answer. I was trying so hard to be “objective” and “fair” and “balanced” that I was going to give myself a coronary. I had bought into the conservative argument that to find the truth I had to give both sides equal amounts of my attention, even if one side’s argument was patently ridiculous or unworthy of attention. The real truth is that if 1,400 scientists in a poll all agree that climate change is real and man-made, while only 4 disagree, I’m not actually obligated to give “both sides” equal space in my brain, particularly if the arguments put forth by the 4 sound incredibly ignorant. The real truth is that no one is entitled to my time or attention, and arguments to the effect that I’m obligated to listen to fools are predatory and manipulative.

Today, right-wing media is not only plentiful and pervasive, but it’s also highly profitable. As Senko points out, it taps into emotion rather than reason, outrage instead of rational thought. It’s an easy pill to swallow for many because it doesn’t require much effort: the media has explicitly done all the thinking for the viewer and provided an easy scapegoat in the process.

I’m grateful my dad never fully bought into Rush Limbaugh, and I’m grateful we can still have discussions on politics where we can find common ground. That’s not to say we agree on everything, but we do live in the same world of facts and reason. I know not everyone can say the same. Personally, I was never drawn into those emotional appeals, and any outrage I felt because of them was because of the deceit and dishonesty I saw in them, along with the blatant manipulation. I think there’s an argument to be made that I felt that way because two of the earliest influences I can remember in my life were Star Trek and comic book superheroes, neither of which are conservative concepts, but for whatever reason I count myself lucky that I escaped the rise of right-wing media with barely a scratch. Even more fortunately, all three of my kids did, too.