Home » Culture (Page 38)
Category Archives: Culture
AshleyMadison — Why we’re too lazy to cheat right
Everything’s easy. Everything’s instant. Is it any wonder that we want everything to be effortless and risk-free — even our acts of disloyalty.
Ironically, patrons of AshleyMadison made their infidelity all the more vulnerable to discovery, believing they could benefit from technology without exposing themselves to the inevitability that anything online eventually finds its way into the public arena.
Technology should free us to enjoy our lives more richly. Instead, it teaches us to be increasingly undisciplined, leeches meaning and purpose from our existence, and deadens us to the simple pleasures that make us truly happy.
Hear my guest interview on the Christal Frost Show discussing why we look for happiness in all the wrong places:
http://wtcmradio.com/the-christal-frost-show-podcasts/yonasongoldson82115/
The Greatest Moment in the History of the Universe
Well, no. It wasn’t.
But to hear Ann Coulter tell it, it was awfully close.
Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with politics. Hardly anyone thinks that Donald Trump’s immigration plan is viable, no matter how much it may appeal to hardliners. It probably would require a constitutional amendment, it would certainly take half a century and over 100 billion dollars to implement, and it would effectively make Mr. Trump unelectable — if he isn’t already.
But none of that is the point.
What is absolutely clear, beyond any doubt or debate is this: Donald Trump’s plan is not the greatest political document since the Magna Carta.
No matter what Ms. Coulter says.
This is the same kind of irresponsible hyperbole that turns every ideological opponent into a Nazi, a terrorist, a rapist, or a child molester. It shows the same kind of disregard for history that led Ms. Coulter to attempt to resurrect Joseph McCarthy as a fallen hero in place of the paranoid pit-viper that he was. And it’s the same kind of disregard for language and reality that allowed Al Sharpton to laud Bill Clinton as “the first black president,” that enabled Bill Clinton to redefine the word “is,” and that lies at the heart of the political correctness that Ms. Coulter herself (correctly) abhors.
To brand every antagonist a Nazi is to devalue the horror of the Holocaust and to insult its millions of victims. To call newspaper columnists and television hosts terrorists shows a vile lack of empathy for the victims of 9/11 and Oklahoma City. And to suggest any comparison between the Magna Carta and a political platform that is 90% grandstanding and 10% policy is to muddy the waters of logic and reason whey both are clouded enough already.
What an insult to the Summa Theologica, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man, and the Emancipation Proclamation. What a mockery of political history.
“Words, words, words,” wrote William Shakespeare. When we don’t respect them, when we twist them to gain cheap rhetoric advantage without regard for accuracy or authenticity, we become complicit in accelerating the Orwellian doublethink that is already eating away at the civil discourse that is the foundation of a functioning democracy.
Email of the Week — Making “Friends”
Presently, I am trying to make friends outside of Facebook while applying the principles of Facebook.
So every day I walk down on the street and tell the passers-by what I have eaten, how I feel, what I did yesterday and what I will do tomorrow.
Then I give them pictures of my family, of my dog, and of me gardening and spending time in my pool. I also listen to their conversations and I tell them I love them.
And it works. I already have 3 persons following me:
2 police officers and a psychiatrist.
What is happiness, and how do we get it?
Order on Amazon today.
Proverbial Beauty, a new book on how to achieve happiness and success, offers a practical guide to changing our outlooks and our fortunes. Here’s an excerpt:
In a single, ringing phrase, Thomas Jefferson captured the essence of the American dream when he declared that all men have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And yet, despite Mr. Jefferson’s noble sentiments and laudable achievements, the enduring lyricism of his words spawned an epidemic of confusion and despondency that continues to spread like pestilence through western society.
How precisely does one pursue happiness? We may pursue wealth, pursue fame, pursue gratification of one form or another. But the fiction of pursuing happiness has become a collective obsession that consumes our lives, either by goading us into chasing impossible dreams or by tarnishing the quality of our existence with unwarranted regrets.
Before we set off in pursuit of anything, we ought to know what it is and how to get it. Like many other words and expressions, we toss about the word “happiness” without really knowing what we mean. The definition seems obvious, but the inconvenient truth is that we really have no idea what we’re talking about.
So what is happiness, and how does one get it?
Read the whole excerpt here:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0815/Goldson_pursuit_of_happiness.php3
Embrace Illusion
We see what we want. We don’t see what’s right in front of us. We need to learn how to look if we want to see what we’ve been missing.
Time — 4:13
Acquire the Gift of Giving
When she was 8 years old, Lara Aknin convinced her little brother to trade his dimes for her nickels. It was an easy sell… after all, nickels are bigger and must therefore be worth more.
Now a psychologist at Canada’s Simon Fraser University, Dr. Aknin has discovered a mistake more profound than youthful embezzlement: in truth, her motivation itself was built on a misunderstanding of human nature.
In an interview with NPR’s Shankar Vendatam, Dr. Aknin describes the experiment in which her team asked toddlers to feed candies to hand-puppets which, they were told, would really enjoy the treats. Considering that these children were still too young to have absorbed any cultural awareness of giving as a value, the results produced two surprises. Explains Dr. Aknin:
“Children smiled significantly more when they were giving treats away than when they received the treats themselves. But what we thought was particularly exciting was that children actually smiled significantly more when they gave away one of their own treats than an identical treat provided by the experimenter.”
In other words, the greatest feelings of joy may come from giving up that which we treasure the most.
But does the impulse remain as we grow into adulthood?
The Orchestra of Mankind
Find tranquility in the midst of conflict. Develop attitudes that deepen relationships. Gain clarity through times of darkness and confusion. Decrease cynicism and find joy in the daily miracles that fill our lives.
Fox and Hounds: A Debate for our Time
More than 1500 years ago, the Talmud predicted an era in which the generation would have “the face of a dog.”
Dogs walk out in front of their owners, creating the appearance that they are leading the way. But a sharp pull on the leash and the dog falls into line, surrendering its will to the will of its master.
Could there be a more accurate description of modern leadership, where our “leaders” look to polls and constituencies before tailoring their message and their policies to fit what is popular and what will keep them in office?
It seems to work, despite the irony that public approval of our public officials continues to plummet. Like the family pet, too many of us are happy enough if we have food, a place to sleep, and masters who tell us how much they love us.
Others are disgusted by the implosion of the system, so much so that they are willing to embrace a self-promoting egomaniac with no redeeming qualities except the one that might matter most: a willingness to say what he really thinks.
This is where things will stand tonight as Fox News hosts the first Republican debate. Maybe a true leader will rise up out of the melee. But for now, all we hear is a lot of barking.
When Prejudices Become Principles
Two cheers for Freedom to Marry, the gay-rights advocacy group that is taking the unorthodox step of closing its doors for no other reason than because it got what it wants — namely, the redefinition of marriage (according to Anthony Kennedy’s unilateral revision of the constitution). So I’m adding my small voice to that of the New York Post to praise the group’s president, Evan Wolfson — irrespective of how much I disagree with his position — for having the integrity to take his victory and go home rather than persisting in advocacy for the sake of advocacy.
Which doesn’t mean, of course, that all his allies will do the same. It took almost no time at all before ABC’s Nightline ran a segment on polyamory, clearly the next step in the dismantling of the nuclear family. “We’re just trying to be the pioneers like in the civil rights movement,” gushed one member of the “trailblazing triad” trumpeted by network.
Finally, in an inevitable but long-delayed surrender to the tide of history, the Boy Scouts of America have released their hold on traditional values by ending their ban on openly gay troop leaders. One feeble cheer to the organization for holding out as long as it did.
With the abyss of moral anarchy looming before us, I’m revisiting my thoughts on the subject from six years ago. At the very least, when archaeologists dig up the remains of Western Civilization some time in the distant future, let them see that Civilization didn’t go down without a fight.
“We must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles.”
This concise jewel of wisdom, from former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, may eventually take its place as either the standard or the epitaph of Western Civilization. While the evolution of social sensitivity can claim an impressive record of civil rights legislation, we have now to question whether our collective obsession with personal privilege threatens the very foundations of the legal system that protects us.
For his inauguration this Tuesday, soon-to-be President Barak Obama has chosen evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation. Instantaneously, the politically correct Left launched its blitzkrieg, excoriating Reverend Warren for the unpardonable sin of supporting Proposition 8, California’s recent gay-marriage ban. Because he used his First Amendment rights to speak his conscience, and because he recognizes his obligation as a representative of religious conviction to defend religious doctrine, Reverend Warren finds himself where almost all defenders of moral integrity now find themselves: under attack by the zealots of moral anarchy.
The offensive against Reverend Warren may not rank among the most disturbing examples in the aftermath of California’s Proposition 8 referendum. In Riverside, California, 40 to 50 signs supporting Proposition 8 were found arranged in the form of a swastika on the front lawn of a Roman Catholic church. Mormon temples in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, along with a Catholic Knights of Columbus printing press in Connecticut, received packages containing white powder presumably intended to imitate the 2001 anthrax scare. Reports from around the country include harassment, vandalism, and disruption of church services.
What would Justice Brandeis say?
He probably would not agree with Justice John Paul Stevens, who quoted him in his dissent against the June 28th, 2000, Supreme Court decision allowing the Boy Scouts of America to dismiss an open homosexual from his position as scoutmaster. Invoking Justice Brandeis as a beacon of light to dispel the darkness of prejudice, Justice Stevens (together with the three justices who voted with him) cast his dissenting vote in an effort to canonize his own prejudices within the body of constitutional law.
But if Justice Stevens argued with the reasoning of colleagues in the majority, presumably he accepted the authority of their decision. Not so the moral and legal vigilantes who have deputized themselves as protectors of the American People against both due process of law and the erroneous decisions of the United States Supreme Court.
Back then, government officials and corporate officers across the country began cutting off financial support to the Boy Scouts and restricting their access to public and private resources. Sounding the charge, predictably, was the New York Times, which asserted that “by allowing a group that bans gays to use public facilities and supporting it, they violate their anti-discrimination statutes.” This, of course, was patently false for two reasons. First, BSA never issued any ban against gays, but only refused to allow leaders in its organization who openly advocated behaviors antithetical to BSA’s core values. Second, and most important, is that BSA was not violating any anti-discrimination statues, since that was precisely the point on which the highest court in the land has just ruled.
“Lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles.” Wasn’t this kind of self-righteous legalistic coercion precisely what Justice Brandeis warned against? Nothing about the policies of the Boy Scouts, who then faced accusations of prejudice, could be reasonably considered prejudicial. Quite the contrary: through their choice of leaders they have always endeavored to inculcate traditional morals and values among a generation of young people bombarded by the relentless media messages of self-indulgence and self-absorption. That they were vilified for adhering to a moral code should have raised a cry of outrage from every parent, every teacher, every community leader, and every responsible citizen in the nation. But all we heard instead, from the highest elected offices on down, was mealy-mouthed equivocation about diversity and open-mindedness.
Sometimes, however, we can be so open minded that our brains fall out. Indeed, the larger issue now, as then, is whether our personal-rights mentality has given birth to an amoral culture that is systematically becoming mandated by law. Even now, those activists who have announced their intention to turn their backs on Reverend Warren when he delivers his invocation are within their rights to do so and should not be legislated against. But what they consistently fail to realize is that respect for differing opinions that are reached through reason and integrity is essential to the survival of a free and democratic society.
Do we really want to live in the kind of lobotomized society where there is no greater sin than judgmentalism? By definition, where there is no judgment there is no justice. By intuition, where there is no civil discourse there is no civilization. To bash each other over the head with legalistic bludgeons is to act like cavemen, and it leads down the road to social chaos far more directly than it does toward social utopia. It doesn’t allow much room for personal freedom, either.
If there is any change that we should truly hope for, it is that this new administration will lead us into a new era in which we stop demanding that the law protects our every right and start acknowledging our responsibility to uphold the system that makes it possible for us to have any rights at all.
The Language of Confusion
Political Correctness has reached a new high — or low — at the University of New Hampshire, where administrators have issued a Bias-Free Language Guide. Forbidden words include the following: “mothering, fathering, healthy, homosexual, rich, poor, senior citizen, and American.”
Perhaps we should find it comforting that a taxpayer-funded school is prepared to go so far to protect its students from hurt feelings. Presumably, educators believe that this measure will improve student’s self-esteem and thereby lead to greater success in the workplace.
Once again, life imitates art, as I discussed in this essay from 2009, written to honor the 60th anniversary of George Orwell’s 1984.
If only they would teach it in New Hampshire.
It never takes more than a day or two into the new school year before I hear the chant of my students’ favorite refrain: That makes no sense!
“What you mean,” I answer the first student who utters that unutterable phrase, “is that you don’t understand.”
“That’s what I said,” the student responds, predictably. “It makes no sense.”
“It makes perfect sense,” I insist, “as you will see once you understand it.”
The student doesn’t give up without a fight. “You know what I mean,” he says. “What difference does it make how I say it?”
“It makes no sense implies that, if the material we are learning does not conform to your way of thinking, then it must be wrong. I don’t understand acknowledges the possibility that the flaw in reasoning may reside in you, rather than in the material.”
He stares back at me, trying to digest this new idea. Over the course of the year, through constant repetition, most of my students will learn never to saythat makes no sense. At least not in my class.
I’ve been challenged on this many times. Is it really my job to belabor this point, to demand that my students express ideas concisely, even when the intent is clear? After all, I’m not a speech or language instructor. Why not just teach the material I’m being paid to teach?
WE THINK WHAT WE SPEAK
In his essay “The Principles of Newspeak,” the appendix to his classic novel, 1984 (published 60 years ago this month), George Orwell describes how the leaders of his totalitarian future have contrived to assure their hold on power by replacing English with Newspeak, a language containing no vocabulary for concepts contrary to the platform of the state-run Party. By controlling language, the Party controls its people’s very thoughts.
Intuition suggests that language is a product of thought: if we think clearly, automatically we will speak clearly. Orwell demonstrates the opposite, that thought is a product of language. Because we formulate our thoughts in words and sentences, incompetent use of language guarantees muddled thinking. If there are no words for rebellion, uprising, or discontent people will find it difficult to formulate and articulate the concept of overthrowing even the most corrupt and oppressive government.
Students of Orwell will shudder when applying this simple axiom to the corruption of modern language. Advertisers and politicians have known for years that the best way to manipulate public perception is by arranging words in unconventional combinations. Car dealers know that potential customers will feel better buying cars that are “pre-owned” rather than “used.” A certain former president knew that the American people would not respond to the gravity of his presidential peccadilloes if distracted by pondering what the meaning of “is” is.
But linguistic confusion became institutionalized with the rise of political correctness. By dodging frantically out of the rain of potentially offensive terms, we soak ourselves in a torrent of euphemisms for simple words the thought-police deem pejorative. When illegal aliens become “undocumented workers,” we lose all sense of the danger posed by the porous condition of our borders. When terrorists become “insurgents,” we more readily accommodate the moral equivalence that blurs the line between aggressors and defenders. When abortion becomes “reproductive freedom,” the horror over the indiscriminate murder of innocents vanishes altogether.
Similarly, when marriage is bereft by judicial fiat of the definition that has served for thousands of years, the foundations of the family structure erode like sand castles before the approaching tide. And as it becomes taboo to make any direct reference to race, class, ability or performance without fear of hurting one group’s collective feelings or another group’s collective self-esteem, the words that form our thoughts and understanding end up so fully shorn of their dictionary definitions that they cease to mean much of anything at all. In short, nothing makes sense.
CONFUSION BY DESIGN
In truth, for advertisers, politicians, special interest groups, and the politically correct, the real purpose of language is no longer to convey meaning – it is to obscure meaning, to appeal to emotions while bypassing the intellect. Their motive is obvious: it is far easier to evoke a strong emotional response than it is to present a logically developed argument. But by allowing meaning to be drained from our language and our words, we have not only denuded them of their clarity, but also of their depth.
Even worse, we are no longer allowing confusion to reign free but legislating it into the public square. Earlier this year, London decided to remove apostrophes from its street signs. King’s Heath will now become Kings Heath. What’s the reason? Apostrophes are too confusing.
According to Councilor Martin Mullaney, who heads the city’s transport scrutiny committee, “Apostrophes denote possessions that are no longer accurate, and are not needed,” he said. “More importantly, they confuse people. If I want to go to a restaurant, I don’t want to have an A-level (high school diploma) in English to find it.”
Linguistic laziness in both syntax and vocabulary has worn smooth the sharpness of our minds. When I say that I love my wife, and I love my car, and I love ice cream, am I not indulging a subtle self-hypnosis that affirms an equation between all three, that suggests that my feelings for my wife is no more profound than my taste for Baskin Robbins and BMW? By impoverishing our words, we impoverish our thoughts as well.
What is love? And what is honor? and loyalty? and commitment? As we strip our language of both its clarity and its nobility, these concepts become caricatures of what they once were, defined by the mass media who, like the Orwellian Party, have as their only concern the selling of their own values and their own agenda. And as much as we the people are willing to buy, they will continue to sell.
“Teachers, be careful with your words,” warns the Talmud, “lest the disciples who follow you will drink of evil waters and die.” When the waters of wisdom become polluted with confusion and contradiction, it is society’s youth who will pay the price through the erosion of moral clarity and moral principles.
Back in the classroom, my student continues to stare at me, contemplating my rebuke for a few more seconds before he responds. “What I meant to say,” he finally answers, “is that it makes no sense to me.”
I shake my head. “Don’t make it sound like what you want it to mean,” I tell him. “Just say it the way it is.”
Yonason Goldson 