Spirited Writing

I want to talk a bit about "real life" language.

I've uploaded three images below. All three are screenshots of a post from an Instagram account that belongs to Callen Hearne (@callenhearne). For what it's worth, he has 12.9K followers and his account is public, so hopefully it's OK that I'm sharing these images (if not, someone please let me know and I'll ask permission). I actually don't follow him, but I do follow his wife Abbi, who has an even larger following (50 thousand). They're in the wedding photography business but their niche is "adventure wedding and elopement." They're young, mid-twenties, married, living half the year on the road in their van, traveling with their dog Charlie. I preface my comments with this information just so you have context. 

The post I happened upon is a picture of the Yosemite sky, taken sometime in the wee hours of the morning. The image is stunning, but it was Callen's message that interested me, as well as one of the comments that followed.

Callen's writing style is slangy and original, filled with its own dialect and grammar. It's unfiltered and genuine, a Gen Y guy talking to the universe, to his followers, to anyone who wants to listen, including this 60-something community college English professor.  

Callen Hearne isn't writing for a grade. He's just writing. He's developed his own voice, which is authentic, unconventional, funny, honest. You don't grade this kind of writing. You enjoy it. Listen to it. Laugh with it. Cry with it.

I skimmed some of the comments and one in particular stood out. She writes, "I'm in college and sometimes my brain just needs to read something like this." Then she adds, "Thanks for helping my head stay creative and my language spirited."

"Sometimes my brain just needs to read something like this."

Sometimes English teachers' brains need to read something like this. 

Spirited language.

Authentic language.

Original language.

Language unencumbered by rules or red ink.

I love this kind of writing. 

I wish I could write this way. 

I wish I could teach this kind of writing.

English teachers assign papers and essays. We take note of missing commas and periods. Misspellings. Fragments. Slang. We comment and edit and correct. We try to encourage and inspire but aren't always successful.

It's becoming clear to me that some of my students this semester won't pass my class, though I'll do my best to help them succeed. But even if they don't, can't, or won't pass, I hope, at the very least, I can encourage them to write anyway. Encourage them to "talk to the universe" in their own voices. In their own Authentic. Original. Spirited. Voices.

LINKS

The Hearnes Adventure Wedding and Elopement Photography

The Hearnes Instagram

Analogy is to Racism as . . .

Recently, an animated discussion appeared on one of my Facebook friend’s feed that was based on what at first glance was a somewhat incendiary comment made by Ben Carson, who currently serves in Donald Trump’s cabinet as Housing and Urban Development Secretary. Mr. Carson, who in his former life was a distinguished neurosurgeon, decided to wade into a current controversy having to do with Donald Trump’s tweets criticizing Congressman Elijah Cummings and referring to Cummings’ Baltimore 7th congressional district as a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” where “no human being would want to live.” Dr. Carson compared the problems plaguing Baltimore to a cancer patient “whose illness can have a devastating effect if ignored.”

Though the subsequent discussion on my friend’s Facebook feed focused on whether or not Trump’s (and therefore Carson’s) comments were racist, I was more interested in whether Carson’s analogy was accurate. And that’s the focus of this particular post. People whose eyes glaze over when English grammar is being discussed are hereby dismissed. 

By definition and application, analogies are not perfect, and using them in argument can be tricky, since it’s often the subtle differences in comparisons that cause trouble. People who rely on analogies as a significant element of their argument are often called out by their critics for using inexact analogies. This is probably what my friend was doing in reacting to Ben Carson’s comments, though the real focus of her anger had to do with the racist nature of Trump’s original tweets.

An analogy is defined as a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Another way to explain it: an analogy is a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.

Back in high school, we were asked to solve analogy problems (there were analogy questions on the SAT back then, though I think they’re no longer included). The task was to solve a problem that was set up like this:

Something is to Something as Something Else is to Something Else.

For instance:

Chair : Desk as Bench : Piano

We learned how to solve analogy problems by creating a simple sentence that showed the relationship between the first set of key words. Doing this would enable us to evaluate a second set of key words to see if there was a clear relationship with the first set.

For instance, in the above analogy, you might create the following sentence that reflects the relationship of the first set of key words:

You sit on a chair that is near a desk.

Assuming your solution sentence is accurate, your solution choices would have to come as close as possible to that framework. For instance, on a test, your choices for the second set might be:

rug : floor

pencil : lead

wise : foolish

bench : piano

Your next task would be to analyze the pairs to see how closely each came to your simple sentence. Your selection would have meet the criteria in every possible way (part of speech, logic, order of presentation, definitions, and so on). In the sample above, bench : piano makes the best sense grammatically, syntactically, and logically (you sit on a bench that is near a piano)

Back to Ben Carson. As I said earlier, it seems that the real issue in my friend’s post is whether Ben Carson’s analogy was apt and not whether and/or to what degree Donald Trump is a racist, though this is where the thread inevitably went. When it comes to whether Trump is a racist, I suspect there’s a lot of distance between those who are convinced that he is and those who, while conceding that he’s boorish or that he lacks social filters, and so on, don’t consider him to be racist. Each side can make its own case, but it’s doubtful either side will change its mind. Which means, we’re on safer ground if we stick with the real issue–Ben Carson’s analogy (that the analogy was made by an esteemed surgeon who actually practiced medicine in Baltimore for three decades and who also happens to be black doesn’t seem to matter. Racism is racism).

I resisted my first inclination to comment on my friend’s post because I know how futile it is to discuss anything on social media having to do with politics in general and Donald Trump in particular. But after reading the comments, I finally decided to wade in to the roiling waters (metaphor!) of this debate, focusing only and entirely on this question: Is Ben Carson’s analogy apt? I decided to put it to the test and set it up as an SAT-type problem:

(rat and rodent infested) mess : Baltimore as cancer : patient

For convenience and clarity, I decided to condense the entire string of adjective phrases (rat and rodent infested, dangerous and filthy) into a single noun in the first set (“mess”) in order to balance grammatically with the single noun in the second set (“cancer”), the assumption being that the word “mess” is fraught with emotional imagery and meaning, much the way “cancer” is fraught with meaning and imagery. Thus, with the implications of the word “mess” in mind, here’s my analogy problem to analyze:

mess : Baltimore as cancer : patient

Now, I have to solve the analogy problem by creating a simple sentence that hopefully shows the relationship between the first set of key words.

Rat and rodent infestation (“mess”) is ruinous to the life, health, vitality of Baltimore.

Assuming my sentence is accurate (and if it’s not, I welcome any corrections), I now have to use that same sentence as a framework for analysis and see if it works with the second half of the analogy:

Cancer cells are ruinous to the life, health, and vitality of a patient

Personally, I think Mr. Carson’s analogy works. Attempts to “heal” a hurting city by means of state and local and maybe federal intervention should be as welcome to that city as attempts by a qualified medical professional would be to a seriously ill patient. 

Ben Carson referred to something called an “Opportunity Zones” program, a Trump-administration program that incentivizes businesses to invest in low-income cities. This is a federal program. But I do think it’s fair to ask local officials—no matter what race, religion or creed—what they’re doing to address blight, unemployment, crime, and poverty, in their cities. 

In my view, Dr. Carson’s comments were neither racist nor incendiary. 

Trump’s, on the other hand…?

********* 

A few links (the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, sorry): 

Trump Administration Offers New Flexibility in Opportunity Zones (Wall Street Journal April 2019)

HUD Leader Ben Carson Compares Baltimore to a Cancer Patient (Washington Post July 2019)

Keep Speaking, Lady

Here is an open letter from a self-described "Latina Mama" named Ana Samuel to Mayor Pete Buttigieg, the openly gay, happily married mayor from South Bend, Indiana, who is running for president.

I agree with Dr. Samuel's statement and share her concerns about how the so-called tolerant left is in fact hostile to people of faith and/or to people who hold conservative, traditional, Judeo-Christian values.

To those who wish to castigate the author as an ignorant, narrow-minded bigot, here is her bio:

Ana Samuel, PhD, is the daughter of Mexican immigrants, the wife of an Argentine immigrant, and the mother of six awesome children. She completed her undergraduate studies at Princeton University and her doctoral degree from the University of Notre Dame before becoming a founding mother and the Academic Director of CanaVox.

Here's an excerpt:

Mothers tend to emphatically care about the welfare of all children, regardless of their family’s origin or current form. We also tend to emphatically care about every LGBT person—recognizing our common humanity even when we do not agree with their lifestyle choices. When we are polite to you, we are coming from a place of deep moral principle and authenticity. It’s not a superficial cover up for our true beliefs about you. You are rights-bearing individuals (like all of us) endowed with human dignity.  

Although our home countries have often been viciously anti-gay places, there is a deep understanding among Hispanic mothers that those who identify as LGBT have suffered a lot, and that many have lived a life of hurt, harm and pain. We feel great sympathy for your suffering. But the ideas you have developed from painful experiences are not always sound ones. And we can distinguish between the two: between affectionate concern for you as a person and disagreement with your ideas. So please stop shutting us out of the conversation by the intellectually dishonest rhetorical expedient of implying or saying that we are bigots. We are the opposite of bigots. 

We are prepared to co-exist peacefully and tolerate a great deal of what you propose, but not at the expense of losing our own ability to practice and preach our own values and freedoms. We are happy to work side-by-side with you, to have you as our coaches, neighbors and friends, but don’t cross the line and tell us what sexual values to cherish and uphold. 

A Message to Mayor Pete from a Latina Mama:Don't Force Your Sexual Ideology on Me and My Children

The More Things Change . . .

I've been re-reading Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. I can't remember when I last read it--somewhere between 2001-2006 according to my own reading list (right side of this blog). Though it was written in the first half of the last century (that sounds so weird), around the mid to late 1940's, so much of it seems pertinent today. There are a few things that sound jarring to the 21st century ear. His discussion about marriage, for instance, would get him booted from Cambridge University in a New York minute, particularly his reference to same sex attraction. Nonetheless, I believe it's absurd to judge people in our past, distant or recent, by today's standards. Better to let their words be understood and respected in the context, era, morals, mores, or their day.

On Forgiveness

His Words

My Response

My marginal notes mention the Covington Catholic High School melee that took place earlier this year at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.  and Donald Trump (I'll link a couple articles below for context). Trump was penciled in later since I re-read this passage on the day the Mueller Report essentially exonerated him of the so-called Russian collusion charge that was leveled at him shortly after he was elected president. The question Lewis poses here ("Suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite as bad as was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that . . . '") needs no response, since we all know what the answer is. This chapter is written in the context of the Biblical injunction that we "love our enemies." Nothing further needs to be said.

The page I copied above strikes me as profoundly prescient. Surely the poisonous political climate brought about by a confluence of social media and Donald Trump is historically unprecedented. But Lewis seems to be describing the 21st century politics to a tee: "fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred." Was it as bad as that in the 1940's? Maybe it's true, what another wise man said, "There's nothing new under the sun." This book was written last century but seems indistinguishable from today. 

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Links

"The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story" (The Atlantic)

Our Long National Hysteria (National Review Online editorial)

Direct Democracy Sounds Good, But . . .

There's been murmuring lately among the Democrats about the need to abolish the Electoral College. 

Here's what Elizabeth Warren said the other day at a Town Hall: "“In a general election, presidential candidates don’t come to places like Mississippi. They come to places like California and Massachusetts, because we’re not the battleground states. My view is that every vote matters, and the way we can make that happen is have national voting, and that means getting rid of the Electoral College … every vote counts.”

She seems to be contradicting herself. By acknowledging that presidential candidates wouldn't go to areas that are less populated, she was essentially arguing for the electoral college. As a Wall Street Journal editorial put it: "The Electoral College helps check polarization by forcing presidential candidates to campaign in competitive states across the country, instead of spending all their time trying to motivate turnout in populous partisan strongholds."

Warren's "every vote counts" mantra sounds good in theory until you pull back the curtain and examine the implications. The Founders’ reasoning for setting up a “mediated representative government” as opposed to “direct democracy” makes sense when you recognize that a direct democracy inevitably leads to the tyranny of the majority (see On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill, for instance). 

The Federalist (linked below) clarifies:

“Pure democracy” is just another phrase for “mob rule.” Dictatorship of the majority means 51 percent of the citizenry rule the other 49 percent. That minority has no rights except those the condescending majority grants. It works well for those in the 51 percent, not so much for those in the 49. Plato knew it, and James Madison, who knew his Plato, did too. Plato and Madison both recognized that justice and liberty for the minority is possible only when power is shared between groups in society.

I think people like Elizabeth Warren and others on the political left like the idea of "every vote counts" understand demography and ideology are connected. Large, urban, coastal states (like California) have a denser population and tend to vote Democratic. The reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College was because these left-leaning states pulled the lever for her. As Senator Warren put it. "presidential candidates  don't come to places like Mississippi. The come to places like California."

Exactly. Why would Hillary waste her time trying to gin up votes from smaller states who lean right when she can scoop up the majority in Democratic-leaning states? Answer: she wouldn't. Hence, the wisdom inherent in the Electoral College.

Sources:

"The Electoral College Still Makes Sense Because We're Not a Democracy," by Donna Carol Voss

"Targeting the Electoral College" (Wall Street Journal editorial, March 20, 2019)

A Modest Attempt to Understand Socialism

I've been thinking about recent conversations on socialism I've had with friends and family. I don't want to get everyone upset or riled--this is not about "who's right/who's wrong" or whatever. I just wanted to toss these ideas around and get some feedback. I’m hoping maybe we can all be nice and hear each other out without getting defensive.  

In a recent Wall Street Journal Letters to the Editor, there was a letter responding to a column about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialistic policies. I thought the letter writer’s distinction of Socialism and Social Democracy (or is it Democratic Socialism?) was helpful:

“One widely accepted definition of socialism is a political and economic philosophy advocating that the entire means of production, distribution and exchange are owned or regulated by the community as a whole, i.e., the state….On the other hand, a social democracy is a political, social and economic system that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of liberal democratic politics and a capitalist economy.”

First, a "bigger picture" comment: The issue it seems to me has to do with benevolence and compassion. For instance, at the end of one recent conversation on this issue, a friend said, “Just because we’re middle class and comfortable doesn’t mean we can forget about everyone else.” Giving it the benefit of the doubt, we could say that the Democratic Socialist vision that we've been squabbling over could be viewed as a sincere desire to make life easier for everyone, which is the point my friend has been making. So at its core, perhaps we could concede there's an in underlying good (social justice) to their vision. 

On the other hand, while its critics may concede the need for a safety net, they still see a trajectory towards ultimate government control of the economy. In other words, where does this "goodness" end? The famous saying, "The only problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money," seems not just pithy but true. So to critics, there’s an underlying flaw to the Democratic socialist vision. 

All of the "good" things we've been hearing about from progressives (Universal Basic Income, Universal Preschool, Free College, Medicare for All) and from the Democratic Socialists (a greenhouse-gas free economy by 2030, overhauling transportation systems, guaranteed federal jobs for everyone, to name a few of the ideas proposed in the Green New Deal), suggest ultimate government control over much of the economy. How can it not? Even Kamala Harris, in talking about Medicare for All, admitted she’d like to see the end of private insurance (I think she has since tried to walk back that comment, but it’s revelatory, nevertheless). So even though I agree in theory that Democratic Socialism is different from "actual" Marxist Socialism, it still represents a trajectory towards a less free society. 

Second, while analogies are not perfect, sometimes I find it helps me visualize bigger picture issues by comparing them to smaller-scale scenarios. Here are a few "what if" scenarios that I've tried to envision by applying socialist principles on a smaller-scale.

So, what if socialist-type policies were applied to: 

Academics: Not everyone has the same life experiences, background, training, parental support, etc. So let's level the playing field and redistribute the points of A-students equally among the rest of the students. This way, everyone at least passes. 

My comment: Even though this situation seems to apply the Social Democratic philosophy defined above (“social intervention that promotes social justice”), I'm guessing that most of us would reject this argument. If I stayed up late studying, or worked with a tutor, etc. and because of my extra efforts, I received an "A" in my class, and another student (maybe less fortunate, has to work two jobs, grew up in a single-parent household, whatever) did not put in the same effort and received an "F"—it’s inherently unjust for my hard-earned points to be redistributed, no matter how bad I feel for the other person. 

Shopping: Imagine going shopping, spending $100 on food for your family, then at the door being stopped and having 70% of your purchases redistributed to a line of people less fortunate than you. Not everyone has the same life experiences, background, opportunities, advantages, etc. So let’s level the playing field.

My Comment: This again feels unfair for the same reasons I listed above. We don't visualize it in such a "microcosmic" way, but isn't this, at its core, what we're saying when we advocate for a social intervention promoting social justice? One way or another, a certain percentage of what I earned (grades, dollars), is taken by the government to help the less fortunate? 

These two hypothetical situations illustrate on a small scale what the government wants to do on a grand scale. The way we currently understand the “safety net,” it’s really only the truly destitute that we should be talking about. But that’s not what I hear being proposed by the progressive left in general and the Social Democrats in particular. More and more, we’re hearing about “entitlements," and not just for the destitute—for everyone. A safety net is good, necessary--it's the role of government. But where does any of this end? What if the next "good thing" the government determines everyone is entitled to is what we might describe as "luxuries"--a car, a cell phone, a laptop, a paid vacation? Eventually, the 70% or 90% of the top 1% earners above a certain amount won’t be enough, and we’ll all be expected to foot the bill. How many of us would gladly work 40 or 50 or 60 hour weeks only to have the government skim 70% or 90% of our pay checks? Even if somehow we "get something" back (free health care, etc.), most of us would resist. Maybe this is another discussion, but I think this kind of top-down society goes against the grain of what makes America unique, at least at its core. 

Here are some final random questions that I've been thinking about:

• Why should the government decide the "greater good"?
• Do we really want the government taking our hard-earned dollars for a greater good the government has decreed (beyond the safety net)?
• What if I don't want my money going towards one or more of these "greater goods"? What if I prefer my money go to a charity, a church, another cause? 
• What if rather than coerced taxing the government mandated that all people earning a salary be required to give a certain percentage of their paychecks to the charity of their choice? Government decreed charity? Most people would recoil. Yet that, to me, is what we're talking about. 
• What's the difference between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism?