Can we regulate guns being sold to the "mentally ill?"

"Mentally ill" is a huge category and an incorrect term. Mental disorder is the proper term. . So which mental disorder? The agoraphobes? The anxiety ridden? The OCD? Personality disorders? The schizophrenics? The severely depressed? It's convenient to blame people with a mental disorder for our latest problem.  But the problem is easy access to guns by anyone sane or insane or for that matter just plain stupid . . .  Everyone has rights in this country and not just second amendment rights.

The State of the Union address

Give Me Some Truth
John Lennon

I'm sick and tired of hearing things From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth I've had enough of reading things By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me With just a pocketful of hope Money for dope Money for rope No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me With just a pocketful of soap Money for dope Money for rope I'm sick to death of seeing things From tight-lipped, condescending, mama's little chauvinists All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth now I've had enough of watching scenes Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas All I want is the truth now Just gimme some truth No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me With just a pocketful of soap It's money for dope Money for rope Ah, I'm sick and tired of hearing things from uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites All I want is the truth now Just gimme some truth now I've had enough of reading things by neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians All I want is the truth now Just gimme some truth now All I want is the truth now Just gimme some truth now All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth

Dr. Not Feeling so Good

I'm sorry but I'm not watching. State of the Union addresses tend to be dog and pony shows that try to make us feel good. Well, I'm Dr. Not-feelin­g-so-good about the future of this country and I'm sick of platitudes­, half-truth­s, ambiguous statements­. Democrats and Republican­s sitting together make a big difference­? How dumb are we to fall this nonsense? Let this call go out to all:

"All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now" - J. Lennon

Olbermann departs

I stopped watching cable "news" shows a while ago, including KO. But I watched Olbermann regularly in those dark days of us being Bushwhacke­d. KO was a lone voice in the wilderness and one that gave us some hope. But an Olbermann voice now is being wasted in the media war among FOX, CNN & MSNBC. He needs a different outlet and one that can be more effective and less petty sounding than that narcissist­ic echo chamber. Looking forward to something new & different whatever that may be from Keith Olbermann. And hopefully Maddow will also move on.

I was a public employee

Pension funds helped to bail out NYC after it nearly collapsed in the 1970's. Pension funds always are tapped. Back in the old days when I signed up as a public employee, people laughed at me. "What do you want to do that for? You'll make no money. You'll be a snivel servant. Use your talents to get rich." No I'd rather work for NYC, after all my education came via NYC very very cheaply. And for 30+ years I worked every day I was supposed to and did as I should and took no advantage of my position. I was promised benefits + salary and now that the day has come I deserve the right to get what I was promised. Otherwise why would anyone work for governments if they don't make good on promises. It's not like I can do a do-over. It's not only about me, but there are thousands and thousands of us. And we deserve the respect accordingly instead of ridicule and poverty.

My final words about sarah Palin

I won't add to the nastiness about Sarah Palin. I can't stand her. But can we say the same about her slavish followers? Are they just as stupid as Palin? And why is it that the media is so focused on what she has to say? Not only the national media but internet sites like The Huffington Post and most of the left leaning blogs.  By highlighting everything she says and does they are making her more and more legitimate.  If she got no press at all would she become an afterthought or some kind of martyr? Is it because she's a woman? We (that is all of us including me commenting here) are helping this ignorant, loud mouthed buffoon to come four-square into our future. My last word on the subject as if anyone would care. . . .  

On the latest Huckleberry Finn Controversy

Some points about the latest “Huckleberry Finn” story and controversy.

My initial reaction when I first read the story was to feel outrage. How could the words be changed in a published work by a writer of no less magnitude than Mark Twain? Did Twain’s critics not understand the obvious point that he was trying to make by use of the word that today is considered worse than the worst curse? Be that as it may, I have a few points to make.

1. When the word is used in reference to a person indirectly is it any worse or any better than when it is directly said to the person? As in you <bleep> instead of that <bleep> over there. .

2.  When the word is used in a work of fiction is it any the less offensive if its use is to make a specific overriding point to highlight an ill in society? I think this is one of the points in “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” even though the use of the word at the time of publication was common place and even considered proper by most as the standard of the day and even though the word itself wasn’t the point. .  

3. I think it’s fairly obvious that the word is used frequently among white people and not just among black people.  When black people use the word it can be interpreted in different ways.  It can be used humorously as many black comics have.  Or it can be used descriptively to make sure the audience understands who the person is. Or it can be used in a derogatory and demeaning manner. Or it can by used by a black person to make a point that highlights a social ill that continues to go unaddressed in society not much different than what Mark Twain seemed to have in mind.  

When white people use the word there may also be several uses. The first use  is pretty obviously racially motivated and charged. Two, it may come up in discussion among white people and after looking around the room to insure safety it will be uttered instead of that ridiculous “N-word” expression. Three, there are of course white people who will hardly ever use that term, whether it be the actual offensive word or it’s absurd cousin. They’ll find another way to use language to describe a black individual. Or they’ll use air quotes. What they actually think of course I couldn’t say.  But as the comedian Louie CK points out when you use the term “N-word” what is happening is that: "the speaker is putting the actual word 'nigger' into the mind of the listener." In fact what other word will come up in the listener’s mind? “Nagger?” -- as it should have in an episode of South Park, a popular satirical TV show that incorporates children characters (same as Huck), and this particular episode attacked political correctness.  

4. Now to the book itself. The character of Huck is a young teen (with a few criminal tendencies BTW) raised in Missouri along the Mississippi that maintained the institution of slavery as well as antebellum southern attitudes prevalent at the time. Huck refers to “Nigger Jim” because that is all he’d probably ever heard. The book penned by Mark Twain, written and published some 20 years after slavery was ended, has its main character Huck searching for freedom from his own “enslaved” situation . . . namely the widow Douglas as well as his recently returned drunken and abusive father. The story is told in the first person voice of Huck so the words used in the book come out of his mouth.  

Along the way of Huck’s escape down (or is it up?) the river he meets a runaway slave named Jim hiding on an island. At first Huck is conflicted over whether he should turn in Jim since he knows who claims to "own" him. But over time they speak together and Huck learns about Jim’s life as a slave and what might be in store for him as he was about to be sold down the river to a much worse fate and thus wants to make his way to a “free” state.   “Huck begins to change his opinion about people, slavery, and life in general. This continues throughout the rest of the novel.” (Wikipedia)

Many things happen which I won’t go into to firm up Huck’s love of Jim. Jim is shown to be a compassionate, caring and decent man and not some subhuman beast as Huck had been taught, destroying the stereotypes of the period. The outcome then is that Huck is prepared “to go to hell” rather than see Jim returned to slavery or to even regard slavery as a necessary institution.

More happens in the book but for this discussion it’s unnecessary to go into.  

5. Now to the controversy. A White professor at the University of Alabama and a Twain scholar had always felt uncomfortable teaching the book especially when he had to read aloud passages containing the offending word. And no doubt that discomfort increased when he had black students.  He also was dismayed by the fact that the book was being taught less and less and had ended up banned in any number of libraries and schools. How then to get this book back into the curriculum and on library book shelves where it belonged? After all Mark Twain may arguably be the most important  American writer of not only the 19th century but the most important writer of all time in America. Arguably of course. 
Interestingly enough Twain’s book raised controversy from the time it was published least of all for it’s use of one particular offensive word now in question today (thought of the word yet?) It was banned as early as 1885 in Boston for crudeness and immorality. The Brooklyn Public Library condemned it for being obscene. Writers such as Hemingway condemned the final chapters for being nothing more than a “minstrel show” and unworthy of the rest of the book. (Wikipedia)

The current controversy arose because the Professor got a publisher to release an edition of the book substituting the word “slave” for the offensive word. It also eliminates the word “injun” for Indian. (“Indian” may be an offensive word to some but I follow Russell Means thoughts on the word. You can look those up.) There has been much reaction, my own included where I thought that it would be a disgrace to keep the truth from future generations. But rather than make political hay out of all this as so many seem to be doing perhaps it would be better to look at it from a purely literary perspective.

Publishers maintain the right to change manuscripts. Back in 1948 Norman Mailer’s book “The Naked and The Dead” the word “fug” was substituted for “fuck.” due to publisher objections. Yes Mailer was alive at the time and agreed. He probably could have had it changed later on but he never did. “Finn” is already published and the author is now dead so could the word be changed? Sure. But the literary purity would somehow be violated as no doubt Mailer might have thought. (I have no idea what he thought.)

But is the idea of literary purity enough? Have there not been abridged versions of great novels? Or novels that have had sections expurgated for a host of reasons? Have there not been different versions of the same novel or play or story or even poem because different versions had been found and other than the writer an estate made a decision or an editor made a decision or a living relative changed something? And what about all the versions of the Bible? How many different versions are there? What is the final text? And what about translations from one language to another? Sometimes the words get sanitized. Of course I doubt if one word had been the focus of expurgating any work of fiction in the past. Finally I don't think the literary purity argument really works.

The new expurgated version of “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” is actually quite a small run designed to be used as books for teaching. Now the hope is that younger students might be taught the book and that it will end up in High School or maybe even Junior High School libraries and classrooms. That would be an improvement to the state of affairs for future education and a good way to introduce the author's deeper thoughts.  But is the book a book for children? I say it is not for far more reasons than just the fact of the use of a hated word, but it can be a good work to read for more mature high schools students who could comprehend satire.

The story is told from the perspective of a child for a very good reason. That reason is so that it would be understood that if a child can work out that slavery is a foul and evil institution than the reasoning of an adult should be barely a step away, given the more capable reasoning powers of an adult.

In  the end I don’t think changing the one offensive word really matters all that much so long as authoritative, unexpurgated and unabridged texts continue to be sold and placed in libraries and taught by brave teachers not fearing the controversy that will arise. On the other hand, if the ideas of Mark Twain in a more sanitized version can be made to be understood by younger generations (both white and black) it will perhaps pique their interest in later life to pursue the complete unabridged, unexpurgated words of Mark Twain when they are ready for them.

Our Brains Are Shrinking. Are We Getting Dumber? : NPR

Our Brains Are Shrinking. Are We Getting Dumber? : NPR


January 2, 2011
When it comes to brain size, bigger doesn't always mean better. As humans continue to evolve, scientists say our brains are actually getting smaller.

The downsizing of human brains is an evolutionary fact that took science writer Kathleen McAuliffe by surprise.

"I said, 'What?  I thought it was getting bigger!'" she tells NPR's Jacki Lyden. That was the story up to 20,000 years ago, she learned. Then, the brains of our ancestors reversed course and started getting smaller — and they've been shrinking ever since.

Cro-Magnon man, who lived in Europe 20,000 to 30,000 years ago, had the biggest brains of any human species.  In comparison, today's human brain is about 10 percent smaller. It's a chunk of brain matter "roughly equivalent to a tennis ball in size," McAuliffe says.

The experts aren't sure about the implications of this evolutionary trend.  Some think it might be a dumbing-down process. One cognitive scientist, David Geary, argues that as human society grows increasingly complex, individuals don't need to be as intelligent in order to survive and reproduce.

But not all researchers are so pessimistic. Brian Hare, an anthropologist at the Duke University Institute for Brain Sciences, thinks the decrease in brain size is actually an evolutionary advantage.

The Domesticated Brain
"A smaller brain is the signature of selection against aggression," Hare tells Lyden.  "Another way to say that is an increase in tolerance."

Hare says when a population selects against aggression, they can be considered to be domesticated.  And for a variety of domesticated animals like apes, dogs or turkeys, you can see certain physical characteristics emerge. Among these traits are a lighter and more slender skeleton, a flattened forehead — and decreased brain size.

Hare's studies focus on chimpanzees and bonobos.  In evolutionary terms, they are much like humans, but are physically quite different from one another. Bonobos have smaller brains than chimpanzees — and are also much less aggressive.

While both have the cognitive ability to solve a given puzzle, Hare says, chimpanzees are much less likely to accomplish it if it involves teamwork.  Not so with bonobos.

"If the food is quite sparse and it's not easy to share, [bonobos] can solve the problem," Hare says. "Chimpanzees, in that same context — where there's not much food and it's not easy to share — they just refuse to work together. They can't solve the problem, even though they know how."

Hare does admit that the shrinking human brain could signal an evolutionary dumbing-down, but more important is what the phenomenon tells us about ourselves. Comparing our evolution to that of other animals enriches our understanding of the human condition.

"The nice thing about studying animals and human nature," Hare says, "is that it helps us design or think of some strategies that deal with our darker sides."

New Year's Day

Everyone is slobbering with New Year's cheer, some are even talking sentimental drivel which I find excruciating others bemoan the gloomy state they find themselves in. By tomorrow they will forget it all and return to their 363 1/4 days position regarding all their family and friends whatever that might be. But it will definitely not be their midnight 12/31 cheery/gloomy selves. I tend to be outside it all since my position is one and the same 364 1/4 days each year. (I don't cotton to leap years if you must know.  "I don't cotton to" now there is an interesting idiomatic expression. Alright if you must know the derivation is from the 16th century and it referred to the cotton fibers melding together properly as in "cotton well;" hence: "cotton to" by the 19th century and its meaning was to get along with. Used primarily in the south at one time.)

What I believe folks should be focusing on come the switch from 12/31 to 1/1 is survival in a post "new normal" world with its odious economic woes, outrageous politics, the octopus  media (print, broadcast, cable, internet, smart phones etc.), the slippery slope of relenquishing privacy, mysterious governmental policies and rules, societal militarization, and the ever constants of violence, fear, racism (covering all "isms"), poverty and their big brother IGNORANCE.

But point in fact who dares look outside their personal circumstance to examine where it is we and our future generations are headed? Ah hell raise a glass. . .  "No snowflake ever sees its part in an avalanche."