The Fig Sutra

I've been having a non-religious crisis of sorts.

In the past four years, since first teaching Core I, I've been wondering which non-deist philosophies mesh with my own ever-shifting model of the world.

Atheism doesn't quite cut it, because it's really a rejection of deist models. I agree with that part, but it's just not fully satisfactory.

Confucianism is out. I like the emphasis on sincerity, but that doesn't work with the narrow confinement of the humane man (yes, man, not person). Can't force sincerity to be just one way. Besides, Confucianism advocates patriarchy, and that just doesn't help to promote my own agenda of, well, non-patriarchy.

Neo-Confucianism is too strictly Chinese, which I'm not.

Taoism has a lot going for it, but it emphasizes the water element; I'm more wood, really.
Zen Buddhist philosophy comes close, but I prefer to be more reliable in my habits.

So, having not yet stumbled on a philosophy written for me, I decided to draft my own. I call it the Fig Sutra. It doesn't exist yet, but you may see its installments later on in this blog.

Why the fig? Well, as everyone who took Core I knows, etymology is the key to understanding such questions. A fig is simultaneously a fruit and a flower. It's not exactly both the cause and effect, because it depends on tiny wasps for pollination, so it's more like simultaneously the setup and the result. Also, the word "fig" could stand for the fig tree, which means that the fig is simultaneously the fruit, the flower that begat the fruit, and the tree that begat the flower.

The fig (tree) has the fig leaf, which is used to barely cover up private parts. Plus the fig (fruit) has been used by Shakespeare as a slang for "cunt", presumably because of what the fruit looks like when it's slit open. Thus the fig is simultaneously the private part and the fig leaf to cover it.

While we are on the subject, "giving someone the fig"---making a fist and sticking the thumb between the index and the middle finger---is the Russian equivalent to flipping people off.

Speaking of Russian, and while we are on the subject of etymology: in Russian slang, фиг ("fig") and нефиг ("no fig") play an almost interchangeable role, as in: фигу тебе ("a fig for you"), meaning that you get nothing, and нефига, usually meaning "nothing", although нефига себе ("no fig for oneself") is actually an exclamation about something momentous. So the fig is both a fig and not a fig, both nothing much and huge, and if you give a fig about it, a fig for you.

So I hope that I have convinced you that the fig is definitely a worthy title of a sutra.

Besides, if I draft the Fig Sutra, I can both follow and precede it. And by following, I mean like following a frisbee; if it goes too deep into the bushes, I can just let it go.

A presidential debate worth seeing

Yesterday was another presidential debate, and it's one worth seeing. All six presidential candidates were invited (quick, can you name more than two?). Two had scheduling conflicts: Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) and Bob Barr (Libertarian). Two confirmed: Ralph Nader (Independent) and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party). Two didn't reply (guess who, and why).

Anyway, the debate between Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin was broadcast on C-Span2, moderated by Chris Hedges (Pulitzer winner New York Times correspondent). The video is available here (click on the Flash Video).

While I don't support either of the two candidates, I advise anyone with any interest in this election to see the debate. The moderator's questions may be leading and long-winded, but they are not anywhere near the kind you get to hear on the mainstream media. The two candidates could hardly be more different---Nader is a consumer rights activist who calls for more regulation and federally mandated social services, while Baldwin is an "unapologetically pro-life", pro-gun rights, strict-interpretation-of-the-constitution conservative who calls for cutting all foreign aid and phasing out all entitlement programs---they manage without any problem to have a perfectly civil, meaningful, and interesting debate centered on the issues.

Perhaps they raise the bar too high for mainstream.

A disability of chatter

There's something about a Day of Silence that makes one contemplative. This past Thursday, I spent it contemplating reactions to my lack of participation in the usual pleasant noise-making. The reactions were anything but uniform.

I got a lot of apologies. People would begin to address me, then see the prominent sign I was wearing proclaiming my silence, and immediately apologized as if for a faux-pas.

Quite a few whispered when addressing me. More simply ignored me. They had issues to talk about, and people to talk to.

A few referred to me in a third person. I was right there.

There was a range of reactions aimed to discredit my silence. Comments like "it doesn't count if you can ________" were quite common. Or, "hey, you just talked!" (my card said that I will not speak unless it is necessary for my job). I even had some who actively tried to provoke me into talking.

Then again, many people were quite comfortable with my silence, taking it for what it was. Many were openly curious about the reasons for the Day of Silence (in solidarity with the silence of people of different sexual orientations), and read my card. Many treated me no different than before.

A few compensated for my silence by sharing more deeply. It's amazing what people are willing to share, to someone who is willing to listen.

And then there were the reactions of other silent participants. Incredibly, and in a matter of hours, we had a whole new in-group, with our own instant recognition, special signals, etiquette, and inside jokes. And an outpouring of warmth, affection, and support.

Finally, there were my own reactions. Unable to contribute my two cents to the pile, I noticed how those two cents didn't really matter, with so many already on the table. Unable to participate in conversations, I would sometimes zoom out until the voices had as much meaning as the chatter of birds, and just as pleasant to the ear. Unable to get interested in the matter of the conversation, I listened instead to the intonations, the underlying emotions and motives.

Disabling chatter enabled me.

Inclusive presidential debate this Sunday

From freeandequal.org:
___________________________________________________________________

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE TO BE HELD SUNDAY AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

The Free and Equal Elections Coalition (FREE) and the Columbia Political Union are pleased to announce that a Presidential debate will be held this coming Sunday, October 19th, 2008, on the campus of Columbia University.

ALL SIX of the Presidential candidates who appear on enough state ballots to acquire the 270 Electoral Votes needed to become President are invited. They are as follows (listed in alphabetical order by affiliation):

Constitution Party Candidate: Chuck Baldwin
Democratic Party Candidate: Barack Obama
Green Party Candidate: Cynthia McKinney
Independent Candidate: Ralph Nader
Libertarian Party Candidate: Bob Barr
Republican Party Can John McCain

The Columbia Political Union will present the debate from 8:00pm to 10:00pm in the Altschul Auditorium, located at 417 International Affairs Building. The debate will be moderated by Pacifica Radio's Amy Goodman, the host of "Democracy Now!". CSPAN will cover the debate, and live radio broadcasts are expected.
___________________________________________________________________

If you are wondering how come four out of the six candidates did not appear on any of the three debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (a private non-profit corporation), you can see their criteria---and sponsors---briefly summarized here, including demonstrating "a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate".

Joe the Plumber

If we were using "Joe the Plumber" as a drinking game for last night's presidential debates, we would all be wasted. But Joe is more than just a talking point, he is a person with real concerns. Here he is, addressing those concerns to Obama:

Rays through the dark side

Momentous changes are afoot, and I am not talking about the economy or the presidential election. I'm talking about progress in safeguarding human rights.

A few weeks ago (Sept. 17), members of the American Psychological Association passed a referendum on prohibiting their members from participating in any "enhanced interrogation". The vote comes almost after a year after a similar resolution has been voted down by the elected officers of the APA.

The grass-roots movement to bring the referendum on the table and drum up the support of the rank-and-file members in itself is inspiring. But that's not all.

The measures passed in the resolution were not going to be formally adopted as policy until the APA Convention in August 2009, but the various mass threats from the members to withhold dues forced the issue. A week ago, the president of the APA wrote a letter to President Bush, making it clear that the measures are indeed immediately implemented into the APA policy, and that:

"The effect of this new policy is to prohibit psychologists from any involvement in interrogations or any other operational procedures at detention sites that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution or international law (e.g., the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture)."

Also in the letter: "There have been many reports, from credible sources, of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees during your term of office." For anyone who is not fully familiar with such reports, and who don't have the time to read the excellent book "The Dark Side", I recommend the two-hour documentary, "Taxi to the Dark Side" (2007).

Negative stereotypes in crisis

As invariably happens in a crisis, the current economic crisis has brought out a torrent of negative stereotypes from the usual sources. (Google for examples. Here's one reference.)

What's more interesting, and sad, is when the source of negative stereotyping is more mainstream and popular. Watch the following Saturday Night Live skit, aired on October 4th, and see if you can pick out all the ugly stereotypes:



Original Video- More videos at TinyPic


Video obtained from Pat Dollard.

Political Sign Language

What if politicians had to use sign language?

I recently met up with a old friend from school who is deaf. After we gave each other the usual hug and kiss he looked at me and signed "Wow, you look half dead, but you are not as fat as you used to be." As sign language is a very physical language, the statement was even more dramatic with the word 'dead' reenacted as a noose around his neck and 'fat' with him puffing out his cheeks and engorging his belly. Now, if this had been said aloud I probably would have put him in shin splints, but upon reflection there really is no way to mince words in sign language. Unable to really say "Well, honey you look a bit overextended" , or "My you certainly have outgrown that baby fat", he instead gave me an engorged belly and a noose.
During our visit, our conversation turned from how I look so much better than I did at 15 to why relationships with people who are deaf are so much easier. Thinking about this and my limited experience with deaf men, I realised, yes, you actually have to look at them when you fight, you can't exactly yell at them from the shield of another room and within the communication itself you can't throw in passive aggressive comments like, "Well I see that you've certainly enjoyed your sugar in the morning tea lately."
Instead, you will receive the "You're fat" sign.

While direct communication is not always the most successful in relationships it certainly lets you know where you stand. With the mud-slinging in the poliical arena, which often resembles a turmultuous relationship, the directness of sign language is exactly why we need deaf politicians. Sign language will certainly not create honest politicians, though perhaps they will be more direct in their corruption.
Plus its quite hard to misquote.

BOOK REVIEW: Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side"

For years, I have been obsessed with torture. US torture of detainees, to be precise.

Of course, I have watched with amazement as the Abu Ghraib scandal unfolded, with photographs reminiscent of an amateur fetish porn site working under severe budget constrains, each reaching well into the realms of the sadistic.

By the time the story spilled all over the news like putrid water over a rotten levy, I have already heard of the Taguba report detailing the abuses from independent news sources, which naturally recalled the infamous Zimbardo prison experiment. However, my imagination paled in comparison to that array of multimedia on display.

“The pen is mightier than the sword”. Put that together with “a picture is worth a thousand words,” and a photograph becomes a weapon of mass instruction.

Since then, I followed glimpses of the new US torture doctrine (“enhanced interrogation techniques”), bits and pieces implying though never fully revealing the whole. There's the story of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen (“illegal combatant”, because the President said so) abducted to Syria by the CIA, tortured, transferred to Guantanamo, tortured some more, and finally released to the Canadian government after several years of inhumane treatment without so much as an apology. Arar is still on the US no-fly list. There's the story of Khaled el-Masri, the German citizen abducted on his vacation by the CIA and interrogated (in an “enhanced” manner) in several secret CIA prisons long after they established his innocence. Stories of boys as young as 14 caught up in sweeps and brought to Guantanamo, of suspects disappeared based on a paid rival's accusations; rumors of the KUBARK manual describing KGB-style interrogations designed to elicit confessions from dissidents---true or otherwise---now enhanced and employed on people with no recourse and no respite.

What Mayer does in “The Dark Side” is weave her extensive interviews and sources to present a coherent picture which not only ties together all the violations that have been floating in the corporate and independent media, but also discloses their likely origins in the Bush W. administration's policies, meeting accounts, and legal memos. The book portrays a clear case of groupthink, human judgment gone incestuous, leading to such ignoble results. Mayer relates her findings professionally, with clear sources, and avoids moralizing. The result is a rich account of human drama, with some protagonists quietly standing up for principle, while others tragically mislead through fear, lack of expertise (or even recognition of that lack), and misplaced zealous convictions.

As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

The Palin factor

What is the draw of Sarah Palin?

As difficult as it usually is to understand the perspective of those of the opposition, the choice of Palin as a vice-presidential candidate is perplexing to the point of disbelief. So I take it upon myself to play the devil's advocate (no reference to the current administration intended), and attempt to validate the Republican's choice.

In the last eight years, the Bush administration has managed to disenfranchise fiscal conservatives and libertarians, which constitute a large portion of the Republican votes. Difficult as it is to imagine from all the pious talk, the administration together with the republican leadership in Congress also sidelined religious right-wing voters, who were so instrumental in bringing about the return of the Republican party to power in the last twelve years. Despite the talk, the religious right saw no action.

The McCain campaign is doing everything possible to distance their candidate from the current administration, and is reaching for those key groups. For his part, McCain is highlighting his record as a fiscal conservative, but he can't do anything to draw in the religious conservatives. His own record is dismal from their perspective, and most such voters strongly supported Mike Huckabee, even claiming that they will not vote Republican should McCain win.

In waltzes Sarah Palin. She is all about religious conservatism; her conservatism frankly spills over to fanatical. But that's not the only thing she brings to the ticket.

Sarah Palin is anti-feminist. Her projected persona of a former-beauty-queen-turned-hokey-mom-who-just-happened-to-fall-into-politics, and even her displayed ignorance on most key political and economic issues, is utterly non-threatening to the patriarchal structure. She does not hide her ignorance---of course not, it's an asset; rather, she highlights her keen ability to emotionally connect with the audience. In that way, Palin acts more as a First Lady would, a gracious and sympathetic host, willing to be coached as necessary. As vice president, she would not assert herself on major economic and political issues (as Hilary Clinton did when she was the First Lady). Instead, she would occupy her time on pet projects---fishing and game rights, gun laws, abstinence-only education, making abortion illegal---thus at the very least giving the impression that the administration is implementing the conservative values.

So as we watch the Palin v. Biden fiasco, remember: she is not speaking to us. Her real audience hears her loud and clear.