Thursday, November 27, 2014

This Turkey, That Turkey

Well, butter my buns and call me a biscuit! In my pilgrimage through life so far, I had always assumed that Turkey the bird had nothing to do with Turkey the country. Check this.

See there's this tasty bird from East Africa called the helmeted guinea fowl.  These were brought to Europeans via a trade route through the Ottoman Empire; i.e., the lands long known as Turkey.  Europeans, having the thick craniums they inherit, therefore called them turkey fowl, turkey birds, or simply turkeys.

Now arrive the colonists to America.  They find a bird they regard as quite similar to the fowl traded by the Turkey merchants and so christen them "turkeys".  And there you have it.

Nobody tells me anything.  I am outraged about this rare pocket of ignorance on my part, and glad to straighten it out.

In any case, I wish my readers a Happy Thanksgiving and beg you to enjoy your friends and family on this wonderful holiday.  I am thankful for your page visits.

Twitter: @unrefuted
Email: myirrefutableopinion@gmail.com

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

The Tap Root of Common Sense


If anything, the sayings of Confucius show that common sense is timeless, or at least as old as dirt. But not every word of it is gemstone. Consider this whiffle ball:

The Master said, "If a man in the morning hear the right way, he may die in the evening without regret." - Analects IV:8 (tr. James Legge)

Strike! It is no wonder that Confucius attracted opprobriums in his own day. Indeed the Chinese intellect was finely burnished by the sixth century BCE and we can understand why his contemporaries might chafe at the dry homilies of Confucius. Lo! Stop what you're doing and soak up this aphorism:

The Master said, "Who can go out but by the door? How is it that men will not walk according to these ways?" - Analects VI.14 (tr. James Legge)

This riddle is but the mental equivalent of a paper cut. And sometimes Confucius is just darn silly:

The Master said, "A cornered vessel without corners. A strange cornered vessel! A strange cornered vessel!" - Analects V.23 (tr. James Legge)

There might have been a silly tune to go with this one that has been lost in the black abyss of time. Any scholar would point out that Confucius did not compose the Analects himself. Rather, it was his bits wisdom subsequently pieced together by his acolytes downstream on the calendar of human events. And to be fair, nowhere do we read The Master said, "They chose wisely."

Yet is the Analects really nothing more than, say, a like experience to reading through a box of fortune cookies? No. But it takes a little work, and more than a little patience to extract the nutrients from the victuals he offers.

Confucius is conservative. He preaches ceaselessly against any deviation from traditional ways:

The Master said, "I am not one who was born in the possession of knowledge; I am one who is fond of antiquity, and earnest in seeking it there." - Analects V.19 (tr. James Legge)

So, for Confucius, conservatism is necessary, because it is the philosophy that promotes knowledge. And in his times, there was no notion that there is ever anything new to know. There is no concept of human progress. Think about it. If you're a farmer in ancient China, your methods and implements are essentially unchanged from those of your great-great-great-grandfather. What then is "progress"? What are talking about? Change occurred very slowly, and actually imperceptibly over the course of a human lifetime, so that the very idea of progress was alien to the mind.

But his conservatism is simply context for his better angels. In this petri dish grows two great teachings: 1) virtue and ethics, and 2) competency of the state. Here, Confucius is worthy of our rapt attention. In particular, it is worth asking if there are lessons for us, as Americans, in our own troubled times. Side-by-side with virtue, he emphasized etiquette, and with governing, attentiveness to the needs of the people and confidence of the people in their rulers.

The Master said, "Respectfulness, without the rules of propriety, becomes laborious bustle; carefulness, without the rules of propriety, becomes timidity; boldness, without the rules of propriety, becomes insubordination; straightforwardness, without the rules of propriety, becomes rudeness." - Analects VII.2 verse 1 (tr. James Legge)

Well, I dare say we can see these effects in our culture today. The rules of propriety suffer from willful neglect in our public discourse, and Confucius would tell us that is part of our problem. Of course, we can figure that out for ourselves. But there is added force in noting, not just in passing, that we've known this stuff for the better part of three millenia. So what's our problem?

We convince ourselves that as we interact with "the other" that this other is undeserving of the application of the rules of propriety. That applying the rules of propriety is somehow a concession, an abrogation of our principles. Hence, boldness becomes insubordination, and straightforwardness becomes rudeness, and worse. But how do we fix it?

The repair relies on the fact that the problem is perpetuated by a fairly small class of people who reside in the political sphere and an agenda-driven subset of radio and television pundits, and to some extent their "fans." The vast majority of Americans do not agree with this injury to simple civility and the commonsense principles of negotiating, with propriety, through inevitable disagreements.

So, the civil majority has to throw the flag. Our electoral politics don't support that, you say? Yes it does. Voter apathy is the real problem. We get the government we deserve. If the Koch brothers "speak" (by which we mean spend big $$$), who says we have to listen? Here's an idea. Let's go vote, and frustrate them with how much money they flushed down the toilet.

Confucius's other principle is the competency of the prince, and is devotion to the well being of the people.

1. Tsze-kung asked about government. The Master said, "The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler."
2. Tsze-kung said, "If it cannot be helped, and one of these must be dispensed with, which of the three should be forgone first?" "The military equipment," said the Master.
3. Tsze-kung again asked, "If it cannot be helped, and one of the remaining two must be dispensed with, which of them should be foregone?" The Master answered, "Part with the food. From of old, death has been the lot of all men; but if the people have no faith in their rulers, there is no standing for the State." - Analects XII.7 (tr. James Legge)

The State is a lifeboat, and nothing can be of greater consequence than her seaworthiness, and the trust among her skipper and crew. Having that, all needs can be fulfilled with effort, however strenuous. Is it possible that we can be weakened by gratuitous prosperity? That we become churlish upon experiencing want? Perhaps it is so indeed if "there is no standing for the State."

Join the conversation and leave your comments. Or chat:

Twitter: @unrefuted
Email: myirrefutableopinion@gmail.com

Originally published October 14, 2014 on blog.com

Saturday, November 22, 2014

My "Honest" Online Dating Profile

Disclaimer: I am not an eligible bachelor. No, I am not dating, but I merely wanted to comment on the unique environment of the e-hookup.  Online dating profiles are notorious for their embellishments.  Let me be your guide to showing you how to do it in a perfectly "honest" way, from the male perspective, of course.  Let's get started.









Name: Mike "The Jackhammer" Thomas

Heh, heh.  A little suggestive.  Boom from the get-go.

Age: 45

Actually, 54.  I just "accidently" reversed the digits. Anyone could make that mistake.

Profession:  Financial Investor

True enough, I have a 401(k) and I am fully vested in my company's employee stock ownership plan.

Best attribute: Very virile, so much so that each of my testicles is larger than the other

A little too crude for the ladies?  I may change this answer when I update my profile next time.

Interests:  I love horsies

I don't have anything against them anyway.  The one time I rode a horse, it took off at full throttle the instant I climbed in the saddle.  We ran at wind breaking speed across the meadow, leaping fences and dodging fallen logs, before finally returning to the owner.  I am lucky to be alive.

Religious attitudes:  You will be my goddess.  Your honey-do lists will be my scripture.

This response is just my opening bid.  Follow-up is subject to negotiation.

You get the idea.  An online dating profile is like baiting your hook for bass fishing, guys.  If you do it right, you will achieve the American ideal of life-long misery.

Direct any complaints to Dr. Phil.

Twitter: @unrefuted
Email: myirrefutableopinion@gmail.com




Subscribe to My Irrefutable Opinion

Note to Readers:  You can subscribe to this blog by scrolling to the bottom of this homepage and clicking on Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Friday, November 21, 2014

Nuts for Butts

Butts, butts, everywhere!  It's clogging the internet like hairballs in the shower drain.  I have lately been inundated by either Kim Kardashian PAPER extracts, or "think pieces" about Kim Kardashian PAPER extracts. It almost makes Black Friday seem like a god send.

Seems like only yesterday I learned about "twerking." Now I am up to speed on Jen Selter and butt selfies that have generated an instagram following of 4.9 million.  I really needed to know that. Never has a butt man been so overwhelmed in his own element.  There was a time when "butt selfies"  meant a sit-down on the Xerox.  No, we're in a whole new world here.

Now I even know all about the Brazilian Miss Bum Bum contest, which is evidently embroiled in controversy.  "What a rumpus!" declares the Daily Mail, in characteristically cheeky British humor. This is today, not yesterday, and I must embrace it.

In that spirit, let me tell you what constitutes a fine female fundament.  It shines like two half moons as in a science fiction universe created by a thirteen year old boy.  It begins with the small of the back, a divot neither too shallow, nor too deep, but just right.  It ends with a well-defined crescent that neatly divides the delicious loaf from the back of the thigh.  The objects of admiration present themselves with unblushing self-puffery, and thrust themselves into the foreground so that all other things reverse-telescope into non-existence.

Ah! It cannot be done proper justice.  Except on Buzzfeed.  The next time you think about curling up with Don Quixote, or Peer Gynt, remember: Blac Chyna, Nina Agdal, Lily Aldridge, and Chrissy Teigan, are all just a click away.

Twitter: @unrefuted
Email: myirrefutableopinion@gmail.com

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

A War Resolution Against ISIS

It is nigh time for Congress to take up an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the "Islamic State."  If it is within the ken of Potomac Man to do it, this measure would not only provide the President with clear authority to act against this barbaric group, but could also address another soul-destroying problem for our republic that has been our bane since 9/11:  the never-ending, abstract "War on Terror."

James Risen of the NEW YORK TIMES (currently under threat of imprisonment by the Department of Justice for refusing to compromise a source) has commented on this point.  The 2001 AUMF against the Taliban and al-Qaeda has been applied to action in some six nations altogether.  President Obama has been drawn to drone attacks like catnip, claiming cover under the AUMF, unfettered by being on the outer cordon of that legislation.  The problem is that "terrorism" is not an enemy entity, it is a tactic; hence, the object of military force can be cagily shifted to suit the US's policy agenda at anytime and presto! the AUMF applies.

Ironically ISIS (or ISIL) has declared itself to be a "state."   Now, we shan't declare war on the Islamic State because that would legitimize their claim.  But at least they constitute an identifiable enemy for an AUMF.  But President Obama has also asked that this AUMF also update and supersede the 2001 AUMF "to suit the current fight."

I would prefer to maintain the distinction between an AUMF against ISIS, and an updated AUMF against these more nebulous terroristic affiliates of various kinds.  The latter should, however, more clearly spell out the President's authorities, the NSA's and CIA's constraints, and the like.  I am an still cogitating on the matter.

One last thing.  I urge the President never to call ISIS "folks" .  Thank you in advance.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Understanding ISIS

Two useful articles appeared this past week that shed some light on our ISIS problem.  One, an Op-ed by George Will, appeared in the WASHINGTON POST (Thursday, November 13, 2014.)  Another, posted on POLITICO, was penned by one Akbar Ahmed.

Titled "The GOP's war debate", Will's piece neatly summarized how difficult it is for our politics to rethink anything.  At least, not in a very timely way.  I had argued earlier (see my post below) that we cannot possibly contemplate a long war against ISIS, with no "boots on the ground," and that indeed such a notion violates the fundamental principles of warfare.  Nevertheless, we seem to be dithering, collectively, with the very idea of whether we should act at all. My argument was that if we act, it must be with unrestrained violence of action.  But that is only necessary; it is not sufficient.

Will focused on the tears in the Republican fabric, but it is easy enough to expand on it to include our entire body politic.  We cannot agree on what to do, and Congress and the Executive are pulling the nation in just about every possible direction.  After treating us to a history lesson, as he often does, Will reminds of the important point that American political values are not universally held.  Although he doesn't explicitly state this predicate, that is one reason why we get poor outcomes even as we ourselves are convinced of our rightness.  And for another thing, that is why we are presently very confused.

Now there's another problem.  We do not understand this enemy, ISIS.  Enter Mr. Ahmed.  His post in POLITICO is called "What Washington Doesn't Get About ISIS" .  Well, what is that?  By way of answer, he introduces us to the notion of Tribal Islam.  Yes, they are Muslim, but that is not what urges their behavior.  I quote from his article: "The core feature that defines Muslim tribal people - including those fighting under the banner of ISIS - across the Muslim world is belonging to a particular family or clan group who all believe they are descended from a common ancesotor.  Their actions are defined by a code of honor which emphasizes hospitality toward strangers, bravery and courage in battle, and, crucially, revenge."

The tribal code trumps Islam, he tells us.  Reading between the lines, ISIS could be motivated by rage against perceived wrongs and a thirst for revenge against its traditional enemies, and, of course, the west.  Perhaps Islam is but window dressing for what looks to be much much more primitive and evidently barbaric.  For them, a corrupt reading of Islam "justifies" the unjustifiable.  Except, for them, they believe it is justified.

Could this insight illuminate "radical Islam" as well?  ISIS sends out the clarion call for followers and fighters under their perverted Islamic screed.  And truthfully, most people, and youth, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or another confession, really know little of their religion other than what they are told.  It seems plausible that by this mechanism Tribal Islam is exportable as Radical Islam to the impressionable.  The latter being sort of the outer circle of the problem.

Here perhaps is a start on understanding the threat, and hence understanding how to craft a strategy.  I encourage my readers to peruse these articles for yourselves.

Twitter: @unrefuted
Email: myirrefutableopinion@gmail.com




Saturday, November 15, 2014

Operation All Too Unresolved


Pardon my phlegm, but I take issue with the common talk we keep hearing about fighting ISIL. "The fight could take years," we are told, and I believe it was Leon Panetta who recently said, it could be a "thirty-year's war." Thunder poop! It could be. But it most assuredly should not be. Interminable war is how you lose. Consider the words of General von Clausewitz, in his classic On War:

"For the conqueror, the combat can never be finished too quickly, for the vanquished it can never last too long. A speedy victory indicates a higher power of victory, a tardy decision is, on the side of the defeated, some compensation for the loss." ~ Book IV, Chapter VI.

This calculation of war is not even a new one, having been taught by Sun-tzu millennia before in the "The Art of War." I shall quote Mark McNeilly's rendition of it, from his 2001 book "Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare." He draws from Samuel B. Griffith's translation.

"Victory is the main object in war. If this is long delayed, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. When troops attack cities, their strength will be exhausted. When the army engages in protracted campaigns the resources of the state will not suffice." (II.3-II.4)

McNeilly, a former infantry captain, opines that if the threat is grave, and if the calculation includes diplomacy, coalition building, and, oh by the way, public support, Sun Tzu, and I think von Clausewitz as well (who military strategists have found to be quite like-minded) would recommend securing victory over the terrorist threat as expeditiously as possible. Certainly not a thirty-year's war.

Here, we have just leap-frogged another problem. American public support for the war as it must be fought is simply non-existent. The war cannot be fought without that element. Sun Tzu emphasized the will of the people to fight as one of the five factors, or five "heads" of the decision to commit the state to the "grave" matter of war.

What then do we conclude? The US is not prepared for war against ISIL. The field of battle is conditioned to their advantage, not ours. Time is on their side, not ours. The commitment to the sacrifice of the fight is on their side, not ours. Their supply lines are short, ours are long. The calculation is clear. The fight belongs to the indigenous powers of the region. We should support them as we can. But there should not be any US war on ISIL; never mind a thirty year one. Let us not be baited into acting like fools.

Twitter: @unrefuted
Email: myirrefutableopinion@gmail.com

Originally published October 15, 2014 on blog.com

Thursday, November 13, 2014

How Do You Stone an Ox?


 
I happened to be doing a little reading in the Pentateuch recently in concert with some some study of the murky history of the second and third millennia BCE. For some reason my gaze happened to fall on Exodus 21. This Old Testament chapter, you will recall, continues the transmission of the ordinances of the Lord to Moses that he is to deliver to his weary band of vagabonds in the Sinai wilderness. It contains the infamous "eye for an eye" injunction in verses 24 through 27, although usually only verse 24 is gleefully sung from the pulpit these days.

But what unexpectedly captured my attention was this law found in Exodus 21:28 - and I am using the King James Version -

"If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten..."

I had never dwelled on this before and I was frankly surprised by it. To proscribe the punishments of humankind for evil-doings is, of course, to be expected. But of a dumb brute? I do not know if the implication is supposed to be that a beast of burden is capable of "sin" and I have not bothered to research it. If a Refuter is reading this and wishes to instruct the community about this theological principle via a Comment, you are certainly welcome to do so. But I am even more perplexed by another matter. How would you accomplish the task of stoning an ox to death?

I have an ox. It's standing in the field and is not even a moving target, say. I pick up a stone I can easily grasp and throw it at the animal with all my might. What happens? Nothing much, I would guess. Maybe the ox slowly turns it head and looks at me as if to say, "What the f*ck?" If I repeat this action over and over again, I can easily predict the ox will turn its back to me and saunter off to get itself out of annoying stone-throwing range.

To an order of magnitude, oxen at that time would probably weigh in excess of 1000 lbs, and would be about 6 feet at the shoulder. What could an average rock-throw do to such a beast? It would be hard to cause the least of a scratch or bruise. Obviously, one would have to work a little harder at this sacrament.

What if one hundred people hurled one hundred rocks simultaneously? If this technique were to be applied without forethought, it would merely result in one hundred non-wounds, but probably a very angry ox. The attack would have to be coordinated to concentrate on the same area of the animal's anatomy, I would think; perhaps the skull. It could do some damage, I admit. Still, I am skeptical of lethality. Oxen, I am led to believe, are pretty hard-headed. Maybe if you made a day of it, it could work. Maybe. Do you have to feed all these people to keep them motivated? Is it BYOB? This event could be expensive.

So, that's one possibility. It takes a village. But what if you're pretty much on your own?

Then I might fashion a slingshot. Yea, that could be the ticket. Perhaps that will illicit at least a snort and a hoof stamping. But I think I need a really big slingshot - no - a catapult. If I could just get my hands on some Lebanese cedar. Out here in the wilderness. Maybe a cedar vendor will just happen to pass by on his rounds. Let's say he does. Now I need some nice tanned leather for the sling. If I could just kill that damned ox, I know where to get that.

Assume that falls into place. Now I need a great big boulder to hurl at the offending animal. About 200 pounds ought to do it. Where am I going to find a 200 pound boulder in this wasteland? Oh, I know, I'll pray for one. Doh!

Can somebody help me load this thing for Chrissakes? Okay, on three! I misse d. I can't believe I missed!

Alright, no more fooling around. I'm going tie that ox to a post, grab a fifteen pounder and just beat him senseless over the forehead. I don't know if that counts as stoning or not. Moses was not really clear on the rules. But as I sit exhausted on my dead ox, I just have one more question.

Why?

Twitter: @unrefuted
Email: myirrefutableopinion@gmail.com

Originally published October 14, 2014 on blog.com

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Spit Out the Gum, Mr. President

What's this? Gum smacking on a state visit?  How uncouth.  The Chinese media was astir with tsks and sighs over this tawdry display by the President of the United States of America, the Greatest Country in the History of the World.  China is not in good graces with human rights watch dogs these days, but like the Japanese, they are known for their genteel and well-bred manners.  Now comes the President, jackhammering his jaws like a churlish school kid. Not well received.

Is this any presentation of gravitas, Mr. President?  If my momma was there, she would slap that gum clear out of your mouth.  If Chuck Norris was there, a swift round-house kick to the face would take care of the problem, and a bunch of others too. Okay, that's a little excessive.

Anyway, at least you could spit the gum out first, before appearing for the cameras.  And not on the pavement either.  I don't want to step in your spent product and spend the rest of the day walking around making sucking sounds and trying to scrape the residue off my shoe soles.

Don't you have protocol people to keep you righteous?  Why do I have to point out the obvious to you?  Please, Mr. President.  Spit out the gum next time.

I'm Ebola Free!

This summer I came within several hundred miles of possible exposure to the deadly Ebola
virus on the North American continent.  Due to this concerning propinquity, I have been self-monitoring for symptoms, and can now happily report only a touch of the late fall sniffles.  However, I will be taking my temperature a hundred times a day out of an "abundance of caution."  Watch this space.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The 11th Hour of the 11th Day of the 11th Month

President Eisenhower signs HR7786,
 establishing Veterans Day.
Old timers will remember that Veteran's Day began life as Armistice Day, which was a celebration of the end of the "Great War" which we now commemorate in history books as World War I.  The end of the conflict between the Allies and Germany went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month and hence that was the date assigned to the celebration of the Armistice: November 11, 1918. An excellent account of the history of Armistice Day can be found here.

Armistice Day was celebrated throughout Europe, the U.S. and Canada, New Zealand and Australia, usually with parades and a moment of silence around 11:00 a.m. local time.  In the U.S., Armistice Day became a legal holiday on May 13, 1938.

Following World War II, President Eisenhower issued a Veterans Day proclamation designation November 11th as a for veterans of all foreign wars.  Customs have evolved over time.  There was an ill-fated attempt by Congress to fix Veterans Day as a Monday, establishing a three-day holiday, which was intended to yield an economic benefit.  However, it was returned to its original date in 1978.  It remains now as the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

Remembrance of the fallen has now moved to Memorial Day.  Veterans Day is a day to celebrate all veterans, including survivors, returnees from conflict, and all that have served.  I close with my deepest gratitude for all veterans of the U.S Armed Forces and our allies, including my own dear dad.  This is your day.

Monday, November 10, 2014

Where's the Veteran's Day Food?

Almost every other holiday or observance has its signature victuals.  You know the list.  The Thanksgiving Turkey.  The Christmas Turkey, or Roast Beast. Black-Eyed Peas and Corn Bread on New Year's Day (you might have to be from the South to know that one.)  Soul food, I suppose on MLK day.  I generally choke down a mattress on Presidents Day.  Chocolates for Valentine's.  Ballpark franks and burgers on Memorial Day.  More of the same on Independence Day.  Yet again on Labor Day, maybe jazz it up with Crab cakes.  Then Veteran's Day... what's to eat?

I could use some suggestions, Dear Refuters.  Unless you work for the Federal Gubberment, you generally don't get the day off.  How about something to throw in the crockpot?  Too lame?

It's apple season.  Anybody got a good pork/ham thing with apple?  I could serve it with my tasty Empty Lot Salad Greens with Culinary Mulch Dressing.  How about a computer-generated recipe?  Any geeks out there reading this? Note: I do not own a 3D printer.

Please act fast, and perhaps we can establish tradition together.  Happy Veterans Day, and if you and yours have served, my sincerest thanks.

Twitter: @unrefuted
Email: myirrefutableopinion@gmail.com

Friday, November 7, 2014

Obama, Have a Cupcake


The day after the election, both Sen. McConnell and Pres. Obama delivered remarks brimming with conciliatory overreach.  We can find common ground, say they.  Tax reform and trade agreements are adduced as reason for hope.

What's left out of this chummy campfire song though, is that the problem is really whether the republicans can work among themselves, not so much whether the new majority leader can "work with" the democratic president.  Look what hasn't changed; the lower chamber and their rascally ring leader Sen. Cruz.

Sen. McConnell promises there will be no government shutdown, no debt default.  Now, I believe the gentleman from Kentucky is a serious man and that he does not want these things, but his caucus and the clowns on the other side of the building are not reliable partners.  I do not expect things to turn out well.

It may be prudent for Obama and McConnell to be wary of each other,  but the latter is going to find the equivalent of legislative ebola on home field.  It is likely the GOP will make fools of themselves again and prove all over that they cannot govern.

Tuesday's results may portend good tidings for the democrats in 2016, if the republicans implode in their signature form.  Obama recently expressed a taste for Kentucky bourbon.  I am reminded of a Crimean proverb I heard recently: "Keep calm and have a cupcake."

Twitter: @unrefuted
Email: myirrefutableopinion@gmail.com