From Their Cold, Dead Hands

I have a fondness for Charlton Heston, the actor.  Not because of the parts he played in epic, blockbuster films like Ben Hur and The Greatest Story Ever Told, but because of his roles in "smaller" films.  I particularly enjoyed his portrayal of Cardinal Richelieu in Richard Lester's Musketeer movies.  I'm a fan of his work in Soylent Green.  I like what he did in Touch of Evil.

I've never been impressed by the statement he made at a meeting of the NRA in 2000, from which the title to this post is derived. to the effect that "the government" (Al Gore was mentioned specifically) could take his gun, but only "from his cold, dead hands."  

The gun-taking government that certain of us gun owners fear so viscerally does not exist, and it isn't likely it ever will in our Great Republic.  It is in the nature of a boogeyman.  Realistically speaking the most the government may do, depending on who makes the law, is restrict the sale of certain guns and amounts of ammunition, at least to certain persons.  If we want to reasonably assess the claims of those who fear the Second Amendment is at risk, then, it's more appropriate that we acknowledge that guns will not be taken away.  Guns won't be confiscated.  There's no reason to think that is threatened.

I don't think that's even suggested by anyone likely to exercise any kind of political influence or power.  What is actually feared, and what may actually be possible if not probable, is that "the government" will prevent people from acquiring certain guns (assault rifles, AR-15s) and magazines which allow one to shoot those guns many times without reloading.  That is hardly a ban on firearms.

This is what should be considered as the latest mass shooting/killing in our Glorious Union, which took place in Lewiston, Maine, brings the issue of gun control, however briefly, to mind once more (then to be ignored until the next one).  Apparently, the shooter used the mass shooter's weapon of choice, the AR-15.  Regulating such weapons doesn't entail the wholesale confiscation of firearms, and wouldn't impose significant limitations on who may own and acquire guns, but would amount only to the regulation of the sale of firearms which were made to inflict death and harm on a large scale and are being used for that purpose on people who pose no threat as they go about their lives.

The "cold, dead hands" we should be concerned about aren't those of a hypothetical gun owner whose gun is being taken away by the government, but the hands of those men, women and children who are killed by guns.  It's clear enough that the cold, dead hands of those killed by people wielding guns outnumber the hands of those, dead or alive, who are not criminals and have suffered the confiscation of their guns by government.  The argument that honoring the Second Amendment means guns cannot be regulated perpetuates a false dichotomy, and presumes that the right to bear arms is absolute, which no sensible person can maintain.

What we must decide is how willing we are to tolerate the violence, harm and death which takes place when the acquisition of such weapons is allowed.

Caveat Scriptor: The Harvard Student Statement and the Backlash

 "Let the writer beware."  That, I think and hope, is the English translation of Caveat Scriptor.  I have a disturbing feeling that it may mean "Beware of the Writer" which isn't what I intend to say in this case, though I might in other cases.

"The Statement" being referred to is, as you might suspect, that issued, jointly we're told, by certain Harvard students and student organizations in response to the attacks made by Hamas earlier this month against Israel, targeting civilians primarily if not exclusively.  

That statement is relatively short, or at least versions of it I've seen which purport to be accurate are short.  It doesn't refer to Hamas.  It does, however, assert that Israel is solely responsible for the violence perpetrated by Hamas, refers to the government of Israel as an apartheid regime, and claims that the Palestinians have been repressed by Israel and compelled to live in an open-air prison for two decades.  It states that the violence Israel will perpetuate in responding to the attacks will be the responsibility of Israel alone.

Some of Harvard's corporate donors have responded to the statement and what they consider the insufficiently outraged response to it by its administrators by demanding that the names of those students making or joining in the statements and, presumably, what lawyers may call their personal identifying information, be disclosed.  The donors are concerned that unless they are disclosed they may, inadvertently, hire them.  Presumably, they'll refuse to do so if they learn who they are and may be inclined to vilify them as well.  Given the virulence of their response to the statement, they may hope that others will also refuse to hire them as well and join in blacklisting them.  Not surprisingly, some students have expressed regret at their temerity.

The Statement is clearly wrong, and even reprehensibly so, in ascribing sole responsibility for the attacks by Hamas on Israel and attributing no responsibility to Hamas.  One may sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people without supporting the murderous and brutal actions of a terrorist organization, which is all Hamas appears to be.   As far as I'm aware, Hamas itself has taken no action to benefit the Palestinians; it has merely committed itself to the destruction of Israel--which is not likely to ever take place.  While it's true The Statement makes no mention of Hamas, it's clearly intended to refer to the recent attacks by Hamas, and absolves it of any guilt for its atrocities, which is deplorable.

Nevertheless, I have to admit I find the reactions of the donors in question to be rather surprising, for a number of reasons.  Let me note, first, that many people of my age and slightly older than me said and did things while college students not all that different from what those who wrote or joined in The Statement have said and done.  It happens that at that time, the U.S. itself was being blamed for violence perpetrated by others, some of whom were student activists, some of whom were from North Vietnam, some of whom were black, some of whom were South African, some of whom were communists--I could go on.

We Boomers while in college and (for a time) afterwards were rabid political and social critics and protesters, and quite ready to blame those we perceived as the oppressors for the violence of those we thought were oppressed by them.  Some of us were violent in the cause of the oppressed, or so we thought.  The Statement considered in that context isn't unique or uniquely reprehensible.  I wonder whether those who now condemn The Statement are Boomers who regret or have forgotten their own youthful conduct.

Let me note also that college students are often naive, foolish, immature, thoughtless, subject to peer-pressure and privileged, and may act stupidly and irresponsibly.  I, personally, do not think or have reason to believe that students at Harvard are more intelligent, sophisticated, reasonable and discerning than students at other colleges.  I think they can be just as stupid and callous as their less favored brothers and sisters.

It therefore isn't apparent to me that condemning Harvard for failing to condemn the students in question with sufficient ferocity, ceasing donations to that institution, and seeking to expose and blacklist the students in question in a way which may negatively impact their careers and future lives, is appropriate or even sensible.  It serves to call attention to The Statement, in fact.  When the financially High and Mighty among us begin to throw their weight around to get their way and seek vengeance against those who disturb them, particularly insignificants like undergraduates, it isn't a pretty or inspiring sight.  

The Never-Ending (Horror) Story

I've noted previously in this blog that I don't think Israel has a religious or historical "right" to the territory it governs, or occupies, or would like to govern.  Not only are there difficulties in asserting that a "right" of such a nature exists in the first place, for any nation, but--for me at least--the thought of God decreeing that anyone is entitled to real estate seems absurd.  Also, I question whether the area of land in question can be described as a "homeland" of the Jewish people since it has been ruled, for the most part, by others since Babylon occupied it and the Jewish people, in large numbers, left it long ago.

Babylon was of course succeeded by the Persians, who were succeeded by Alexander and his successors, who were succeeded by Rome, which was succeeded by Arabs and the Ottomans and so on until 1948.  That's a very long time.  At least from the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the second temple, most Jews lived elsewhere.  Thus the Jewish Diaspora, which some maintain commenced with the Babylonian Captivity.

The creation of Israel, it must be recognized, virtually guaranteed conflict with those who lived where it is now located.  That conflict has continued since its creation.  It seems likely to continue ad infinitum.  It may therefore be claimed, reasonably I think, by those who don't believe in the Jewish homeland or that God gifted it to the Jews, that its creation was unfortunate.  

That said, Israel exists and is a sovereign nation.  It should be treated as such.  A sovereign nation may defend itself.  It cannot be erased from the world.  It will continue to exist, unless perhaps the entire region or the world itself is destroyed. 

Claims that Israel should be dissolved or destroyed and efforts to achieve those claims are, therefore, futile and unreasonable.  When those efforts amount to brutal, ruthless terrorism of the kind being perpetrated now by Hamas, they should be denounced and deplored. 

The fact that Israel is a sovereign nation does not mean that it has any right to, or should, expand its borders particularly if it results in the additional displacement of those already displaced by its creation.  Its expansion in the form of new "settlements" beyond its borders isn't justified by the claims of zealots who think the land is theirs because God gave it to the Jews, which are absurd.  It's expansion to the harm of others is unjustifiable.

What should take place in any reasonable world is a resolution which wouldn't include either the destruction of Israel or its expansion, and the recognition of the fact that Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs should be accorded the same treatment, and have the same rights.  However, the effective leaders of the conflicting peoples have no interest in such a resolution.  One side wants Israel destroyed, the others want the Palestinians to be removed or rendered harmless.

Can reason be imposed, can peace be imposed, when those fighting one another have no interest in either?  It's doubtful.  Perhaps the only option is to act in such a way as to restrict or contain the harm which will be caused by the intransigent on both sides.   That will be difficult enough to do, but may be more achievable than any peace.

 

Social Media and the Roman Empire

 

It seems there is a trend, fostered for God knows what reasons by Social Media such as TikTok, by which women ask men how often they think of the Roman Empire.  Supposedly, the men have responded that they think of it quite often.  Just what these men consider the Roman Empire to be, or what it is about the Roman Empire they think about (there was a lot involved in it, after all) isn't clear.

Nor is it clear whether this trend actually exists, or how it arose if it exists, or the extent to which it exists.  These days, it seems possible that a woman may have asked a man about the Roman Empire one day and posted the response on Social Media, whereupon women all over the world having read of it began asking men about it or at least claimed they had done so.  Such things are possible in these unfortunate times, where it seems anyone may be an "influencer" or can claim to be one.  I can only say that I see the trend mentioned in posts and headlines.

The fact that there is a "trend" having been noted somewhere, sometime, somehow by someone, various and sundry pundits and pontificators have pondered why there is such a trend and, of course, what it means.  What it means to some is that men are vulnerable and confused about themselves, and apparently long for the good old days of Rome, where it is said the patriarchy reigned free and undisturbed, and women kept in their place.  Alternatively, men may just want to repress and dominate women and think fondly of an era and place where that took place with greater ease than it does now.

Our current fascination with sex and gender issues makes it unsurprising that speculations and conclusions of this nature abound.  But explanation of the fascination with Rome and its empire is found easily enough because its memory is everywhere, and in some respects and forms it still exists.  The Catholic Church is in many respects a ghost of the Empire.  Portions of Latin are used in discourse, and in the law, medicine and science, and of course the Romance languages are derivations of it.  Roman Ruins, still spectacular in many ways, lie throughout Europe, the U.K., North Africa, and large parts of Asia.

Its impact on law and government is immense in the West., and not merely in the continent of Europe.  The government of the U.S. was inspired by it and mimicked it.  Christianity was born and developed in the Empire, and its history and that of the Christian religion are intermixed.

Movies and books based on Roman history have been made and written for many years.  Roman architecture can be seen in many public buildings.  Nations are compared to it.  Its authors are still read and studied.  There's really no getting away from it, in the West.

This is not to mention the fact that, in the history of the West, there has been no other nation or form of  government which ruled over so many diverse peoples and regions so successfully and for so long in all of history.

It seems unlikely, then, that the popularity of the Roman Empire is due to feelings of sexual inadequacy or insecurity or urge to dominate being experienced by modern men.   It seems rather peculiar that there are those who come to this conclusion; it may say more about them than anything else.

Rome was a patriarchal society, no doubt.  It was military and imperialistic, cruel and hierarchical. It can be maintained, though, that this is the case regarding its successors as well, and it's unclear it was any worse than other empires and nations that came after it, even relative to the rights of women, who could not vote until recently, could not freely divorce until recently, and whose legal rights were minimal until recently.  Women were, in fact, less free and had less rights in many respects after the dissolution of the Empire than they had during the Empire.

Philosophy as Affectation

Gertrude Stein made the remark shown at the head of this post in connection with the death of the dancer/choreographer Isadora Duncan.  Duncan loved to wear long, flowing scarves.  She was wearing one while driving on September 14, 1927.  The scarf became entangled in one of the wheel wells of the car she was in (the wheels were open-spoked), pulling her from the car and breaking her neck (even, it seems, decapitating her or nearly doing so).  Gertrude Stein could be sardonic.

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, "affectation" is "a. speech or conduct not natural to oneself: an unnatural form of behavior meant especially to impress others" or "b. the act of taking on or displaying an attitude or mode of behavior not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt."

It isn't clear to me that wearing long scarves is an affectation according to that definition.  It may be conduct intended to impress others, but I don't think it may properly be called "unnatural."  Still, we can infer what Gertrude meant in making her rather gruesome witticism without concluding wearing scarves of any sort is somehow an unnatural form of behavior.

I've remarked before in this blog that I'm annoyed by the metaphysical and epistemological efforts of some philosophers to question what is "real" and what we can "know."  Perhaps it would be kinder to describe those efforts as attempts to ascertain how or whether we can determine what is "real" and what can be "known."  It may be kinder to do so, but I think those efforts would in that case be no less annoying.

I think the fact that the claims of these philosophers are without merit has been shown by other philosophers, such as Wittgenstein and J.L. Austin.  But here I address the annoying nature to those claims; I propose that we may, reasonably, characterize their thought as irksome affectations. 

The source of my annoyance arises from a simple fact.  These philosophers, while spending their time and that of others foolish enough to read their works debating what is real and what can be known, and in creating and entertaining arguments in support of the position that we can't know anything, and in particular can't know if anything is real, blithely conduct themselves and interact with others and things in the world, treating them just as they would if they were, in fact, real and known by them.  Their conduct belies their claims, in other words.

I've always thought them to be in some sense disingenuous or dishonest as a result.  "I don't know if this chair exists" I imagine them saying "but I'm sitting on it and sit on it every day, just as I would if I knew it exists.  But I don't.  And in fact can't."  It seems rather harsh to call them brazen hypocrites, though.  We usually reserve that term for those who claim certain conduct is wrong and nonetheless engage in it all the time.  The philosophers I refer to probably aren't acting dishonestly or immorally.  

But, I think it's clear that they're saying, and behaving, in an unnatural manner.  "Unnatural" because the claims they make are plainly at odds with what they do, think and say naturally, as human beings, in the course of their lives.  For the same reason, their speech and conduct is not genuine.

I think it's also clear that their speech and conduct in this respect are intended to impress others.  After all, they purport to tell us all that we can't know what's real, or can't really know anything.  They seek to encourage doubt of things with which we interact at every moment.  They maintain, in other words, that we're foolish to think and act as we do, and we would understand that if only we were as intelligent as they are.

This kind of philosophy, which purports to doubt what is real and what can be known, is therefore an affectation.  And would be dangerous, if anyone actually took it seriously.