Your life will be strong and productive...like a "healthy fruit tree planted next to a river," if you follow the advise of godly people, associate with godly people and maintain a gracious attitude. Psalm 1:1-3 

It’s Called a Syllogism”

I’ve been thinking, for quite some time, that most of our media personalities are no longer capable of coherence.

In case you are tempted to wonder why I care, Cambridge Dictionary says “if an argument set of ideas or a plan is coherent, it is clear and carefully considered, and each part of it connects or follows in a natural or sensible way.” To be blunt, coherence is a necessary ingredient in communication. Without it, we are generally unable to make sense out of anybody's argument.

Coherence is the glue that connects the pieces of of any statement in a way that makes sense. Of course, if you have no desire to make sense...if you simply want to rant...what does it matter? Well then, perhaps that is the true strategy in our present day media.

Case in Point: Eric Alterman was complaining, in his blog, about the WSJ's failure to document an alleged alliance between the U.S.'s sworn enemies...communists, Islamic radicals: Hezbollah, Chávez and London's 'Red Ken. Alterman gives us a peak at his own views when he says "this notion of a leftist alliance with Islamic radicals is often trumpeted by crazy people like Horowitz, and sometimes even Hitchens, but it makes no sense whatever."  You don't need a lot of cerebral juice to anticipate Alterman intends to debunk the WSJ article.

He goes on to say "put simply, they hate everything about each other. And while they both hate Bush, so does virtually the entire world -- at least the part that's paying attention."

And then...the "aha" moment: "I looked deeply into the piece for any evidence of this putative alliance -- particularly as it related to London's mayor, Ken Livingston. And guess what? Surprise, surprise, there's no there there."

Alterman actually contacted the WSJ reporter to argue the point and was disappointed with his response. He  says "his response strikes me as all too typical of the arrogant reporter's smug refusal to engage on, or even defend, his work."

Here's where we reach the deep end of the pool. Alterman accuses the WSJ, and it's reporter of an arrogant vacuousness that is unworthy of good journalism...all the while....engaging in the same tactics. He says  "And while they both hate Bush, so does virtually the entire world -- at least the part that's paying attention." This, of course, is a pretty loaded statement offered...completely without the benefit of substantiation. We used to refer to this as "the pot calling the kettle black."

Not that any of this matters if you have no regard for coherence. I do ask myself, however, how can I take a person seriously when his inability to articulate a meaningful argument is so completely lacking? It makes my head hurt.

As a first year philosophy student I was taught the art of the syllogism...a process of logic in which two general statements lead to a more particular statement. It's not complicated, but is foolproof.

A = B
B = C
Therefor, A = C 

How is that complicated?

Which brings me to my conclusion. Opinions are not inherantly coherent. Opinions are not connected to anything that gives them coherence. they are just opinions. Calling Horowitz "crazy" has no connection to anything. Try to put this opinion into a syllogism.

Horowitz is crazy
Crazyness is...uh, well, I don't know
Therefor, Horowitz is...uh, well, I don't know

That logic ought to earn you a degree at most universities. Unfortunately, it will never get you any respect on the street...or the court of public opinion.

Next time you're tempted to pontificate with one of your treasured opinions...don't embarrass yourself.

Your life will be strong and productive...like a "healthy fruit tree planted next to a river,"  if you follow the advise of godly people, associate with godly people and maintain a gracious attitude.  Psalm 1:1-3

Napolean supposedly said...in order to justify the brutality of his campaigns..."in order to make an omelette, one must break a few eggs."

How convenient...living life as a metaphor. In truth, we know Napolean was not making omelettes when he was invading the countries of Europe. The metaphor did, however, allow him to excuse his behavior. After all...who can disagree? Just try to make an omelette without first breaking the eggs.

The reality is we all speak in metaphors. When I say my desk is a "disaster area"  I am using a metaphor.  There is nothing wrong with doing this. Metaphors are intended to illustrate and illuminate. They provide a "common word picture"  of the object being described. The value is, it helps you and I find "common ground"  with respect to the state of my desk...if you care. When I was taking Clinical Pastoral Education units the notion of metaphors took center stage. As a counselor, it is virtually impossible to accurately hear what somebody is saying without identifying the metaphors in their story...and pursuing the meanings of the metaphors. Metaphors are not intended to be taken literally but they are intended to be used with precision as they illuminate something literal..

I am concerned that our society has become irresponsibile in how we apply our metaphors. We no longer use them to find "common ground."   As I listen to our media it seems the metaphors are no longer meant to illustrate or  illuminate, but to mislead or obfuscate. Last night I heard a popular radio personality refer to our president as a "son of a Bush." Here is a metaphor that may seem "cute" in a coarse culture but belies the real nature and value of metaphor. It doesn't illustrate or illuminate anything other than the speaker's crude bias...and make our president an object of derision. The focus has been taken away from the object being described. When that happens a person can basically say anything...without constraint. The first casualty is the truth. This same commentator referred to our president as a "moron." Well, we also know that is not truth.

While abusing metaphors may result in popularity in certain circles it is only a sign of laziness and lack of discipline...and the cost is high. In misappropriating a valuable tool for communication we dilute its value for communicating important truths and encourage misunderstanding. Allow me to suggest that we take one of our more precious tools for communication and handle it with great care. After all, we are reminded to "let our yes be yes and our no be no." 

Don't let your "yes" be a "figure of speech."

 I generally enjoy Camille Paglia’s writings. She encourages me to think more critically and I expect she is one the more intellectually honest academics in our country. Her opinions resonate with mine. Having said that, I have to take issue with a point she made in a recent contribution to the NYT. What is it about academic freedom that makes academics want to elevate its value above every other core value.

I quote MS Paglia: "Tenure owes its very existence to past intrusions by state legislatures in the curricular business of state universities. If politicians start to meddle in campus governance, academic freedom will be the victim. And when students become snitches, we are heading toward dictatorship by Mao's Red Guards or Hitler Youth."

Why is a student labeled a "snitch" because he/she reports what happens in the classroom? The "what goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas" mentality implies immoral, unethical or illegal behavior (or at least something worth hiding). If we apply that mindset to the classroom why would we be surprised when parents no longer trust professors? A fair and honest attempt to educate ought to be under girded by "sunshine laws" that give everybody the ability to evaluate what's going on. Even physicians encourage patients to “get another opinion”.

Herein is the basis of my concern; where do I go for another opinion? Academia is pretty much a government sanctioned monopoly. If I don't like...or am unable to find out...what's going on behind the ivied halls what are my options? I have none if I hope to send my children to competitive universities.

I was taught there are no institutions above the "will of the people" in a democratic society. That includes governments, corporations, churches...and surely schools. The idea that the academy could be effectively insulated from responsibility to anybody is more frightening to me than the possible loss of academic freedom. It puts academics in an elite, entitled class unaccountable to the very people who underwrite their privilege.

When a geology professor rants on about how President Bush is an “idiot and a war criminal” he is not exercising academic freedom. He is indoctrinating his class. There is a huge difference. We can characterize soviet re-education camps in many ways but "bastions of academic freedom" does not immediately come to mind. Academic freedom says the geology professor should be permitted to teach geology freely...wherever the facts may take him...without fear of reprisal. On the other hand, if a political science professor made the same comments, one could make the argument that the comments were within the bounds of academic freedom if they had some academic merit based on factual history or context. After all, shouldn't there be an affectionate relationship between academic freedom and truth?

It makes me wonder if the first casualty of tenure is truth. I don't mind hearing things I don't believe. I don't even mind hearing things that anger me...or challenge me. I do mind if the things I hear in the name of academic freedom have no demonstrable basis in fact or cannot be documented...even marginally...to be true. I would have thought the notion of academic freedom would have included a familial allegiance to truth, not a freedom "from" truth.

We can always debate the meaning of truth...and the definition of what constitutes truth in any given discipline. That is a worthy endeavor. The outcome of the debate should hinge on the ability of one side to mount a superior objective argument. I love biblical hermeneutics. I can discuss dogma and doctrine with my collegues and we all go back to a worthy Greek text to examine the historical record. At the end of the day, if my challengers disagree on the basis of their hermeneutic, I'm at least content that we were part of the same discussion. I believe that is the true spirit of academic freedom.

The traditional definition of  "Terrorist" has been "one who inspires fear; an appalling person."  More recently, the term has gained such a political and cultural cachet that it's true meaning and impact has been sublimated by a hopeful notion that terrorists are simply "misguided" freedom fighters. By current definition, we no longer define a terrorist by his, or her, actions, but by their imputed motives. We develop sympathy for the pure intentions of the misunderstood  victims of disadvantaged circumstances.  Some americans are actually exhibiting symptoms of the "Stockholm Syndrome." The term  "terorist" no longer works when applied to the enemy we now face. It strikes fear into the hearts of nobody...except the poor souls who have met terrorists face to face.

On the other hand, a "thug" is a "brutal gangster or assassin."  I vote for the second term to define our enemy.  It serves a couple of constructive purposes.

First? Because we have all met thugs. We grew up with them in school. They were the people who made us switch seats on the school bus...just because they could.  They were the people who purposely bumped into us in the hallway and made us drop our books. They were the ones who would tip our milk in the lunchroom. As we grew older they became the people who cut us off in traffic or quickly cut in front of us and took the last parking spot. On a massive scale, he was the guy who killed 30 million innocent Russians. He was the guy who built rape rooms in Iraq. There is no glory in thuggery. It is just ugly. You get the point. The benefit of calling a terrorist a thug is simply this: We all have met thugs. We know the pain they inflict. We don't like them. We want them punished.

Another great benefit of switching terms is clarity. The one thing we know about thugs is this: They have no real ideology. Even when there is no real tangible benefit, they simply want to hurt, brutalize or instill fear in people purely for the pleasure of the endeavor. Thugs are not encumbered by religion, philosophy , race or politics. These are just "weapons of choice" that enable them to exact their selfish will on others. There is nothing redeeming about a thug. There are no excuses for a thug. Most important...they are never sated by appeasement. In fact, their unabated run of brutality is addicting to them.

The frightening reality is we never really get away from thugs. They are always with us. If the neighbor boy is tearing down mailboxes there is no point in hoping your own will never fall to the thug's bat. It's just a matter of time. You see, a thug is not a racist or bigot. A thug picks on everybody.

With one exception: Thugs are fearful people themselves. They are afraid of hard work. They are afraid of honest gain. They are very afraid of pain. The moment a thug recognizes he is in real danger he flees. So, even though you can never get away from all the thugs, you can neutralize them by ensuring they understand the resulting pain will not be worth the bad behavior.

So, Iraq is full of thugs. Not "islamo-fascists."  Not "freedom fighters". Not loyalists. They're just thugs using religion or ideology or politics as a weapon to be brutes. We know this because our own freedomfighter in the 1780's never systematically eliminated innocent people simply for purposes of inflicting fear. We know this because Fundamentalist Christians in america are defined by doctrinal positions concerning Jesus and Scripture...not by violence. But we know...there are a few thugs who parade under the banner of  "fundamentalist Christian" as long as it serves their purposes.

This is why it is naive to believe if we leave Iraq we rid ourselves of terrorism. It is the nature of a thug to prey on the weak. The thugs in the middle east will only follow us home...and they will pick on us here. See they have no ideology that allows them to declare victory and cease hostilities. It just what they do. They've already done it to us...on 9/11. In fact, its just plain silly to claim Afghanistan is OK but Iraq is not. A thug is a thug.

So the question is simple. When your neighbor cuts down your tree do you confront him of thank your lucky stars he didn't cut down your favorite hedge? Trust me...your hedge will be next. At what point has your neighbor become such a thug that you want to respond? After he stole you telephone...so you can't call 9-11? This war is not going away simply because we want it to. We didn't start it, but we can end it. When the last thug decides enough is enough. That take resolve...and resolve is not for the timid. Nearly every person who ever stood up to a thug was filled with fear...and suffered mightily. They don't go away easily.


So...this is not a war on terrorisn. It's a war against thugs. We can begin with the ones in the middle east who mean us harm, but we have plenty of thugs right here at home who are doing their dirty deeds. Some are politicians. Some are businessmen. Some are teachers. Some are religious leaders. Just remember, the uniform or weapon is just incidental. Look at their tactics. They are the ones who force you to alter your values and habits against your will...just cause they can.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is always a pig. You can soften the words you use to describe evil...and may even get away with it with those who have never really confronted evil...but it is still evil. A thug is a thug. I'm with the president on this one. And let's pray we do not become thugs in the process.