Temperance (Part One)

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet) -- the Stickies -- to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Blogaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View original (above↑) to solve the problem/access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My beautiful muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 

Iggy -- Designated Sticky

Dana -- Designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

Dear (Eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies,

Wikipedia: "Temperance is defined as moderation or voluntary self-restraint."

"Moderation in all things," Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Temperance, not a commonly used word these days, is the next cardinal (hinge) virtue I wish to explore. I think I mentioned (in some form, I'm too lazy to look it up) a few columns back that, "The term cardinal comes from the Latin cardo (hinge); the cardinal virtues are so called because they are regarded as the basic virtues required for a virtuous life." -Wikipedia again. All virtues hinge on the cardinal virtues.

If I didn't, I just did. If I did, consider yourself refreshed, or oriented if you just got here. (Where have you been? I've been at this since 7/15 @ theflyoverlandcrank.com. No wonder I've yet to go viral...)

On the rare occasion I do encounter the word temperance, the first thing I think of is The Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU, I've no idea why).

[Iggy, my imaginary grandsticky, speaks. Poppa, like, what's this WCTU thing? Yes, enlighten us, please, you know you want to, Sez Dana, imaginary gentlereader, somewhat sarcastically I note. Marie-Louise, my beautiful muse, scratches my back reassuringly, so I know I'm on the right path.]

The WCTU, founded in the late 1800's, was is (they still exist) part of the temperance movement, folks who refrain from the use of alcohol and other recreational pharmaceuticals and support the gummits and The Gummit restricting the use of, or the banning of, same.

The WCTU, quite influential at one time, is one of the reasons the USA completely prohibited the use of alcohol, via the 18th amendment, from 1920 to 1933.

The temperance movement has religilous (I know it's misspelled, far be it from me to not opt for the lame joke) roots. Generally, they don't counsel moderation in the use of recreational pharmaceuticals, they promote abstinence, not using them at all. Which should surprise no one. And of course, there's much to be said for personally deciding to not drink or drug and advising others to do the same.

Abstinence isn't technically moderation. But if you're an alcoholic or a drug addict it's the only virtuous/rational choice. Your excessive drinking or drugging will not only eventually kill you, it's likely to literally/figuratively kill or maim plenty of other kids on the playground along the way. Abstinence, for you, is temperance (voluntary self-restraint), not to mention, the prudent thing to do.

BIG BUT.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions," Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (maybe...).

The good ladies of the WCTU, concerned with all the victims of substance abuse, not just the abuser, fought for, and succeeded in, (temporarily) banning alcohol. The WCTU defines temperance as "moderation in all things healthful; total abstinence from all things harmful." Not a bad personal philosophy.

However, when you start banning the other kids on the playground from this, that, and the other behavior, even with the best of intentions, things can get ugly, fast. Intemperately imposing your, or your religion's, rules and regs on all the other kids, even with the best of intentions, may make things worse by creating new problems.

While sharing the playground requires rules and grups (the rule of law), to ensure the kids have maximum fun (liberty --  and all that founding father's shtuff) you need just enough rules and grups.

 Wikipedia: "Temperance is defined as moderation or voluntary self-restraint."
"Moderation in all things," Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The rule of law + (restrained by) temperance = maximum freedom, but, maximum freedom - (unrestrained by) temperance = chaos.

A happy/healthy playground requires the rule of law (and morality, and good manners, and tolerance, and patience, and security, and...). And the drawing of fine lines. 

That is, deciding on what sorts of behavior we all agree should be punished, and how, in spite of the fact H. sapiens have always done it/will continue to do it anyway. 

That is, refraining from punishing behavior that, while we may punish ourselves for it, or believe that our God will, H. sapiens have always done it/will continue to do it anyway.

Fine lines, but clearly drawn, well thought out lines. For example, I rarely drink, and I don't care much for drunks. I also don't want my grandstickies and great-grandstickies to be drunks. However, even once I become the King of America, I won't ban alcohol, for people 21 or older.

Because I don't care if they (or anyone else) enjoy a drink once in awhile. I don't care if they (or anyone else) occasionally gets drunk, as long as they don't drink and drive. Because I'm a sexy seasoned citizen (see glossary) and I know shtuff.

I know that while murder should be prohibited, for what should be (hopefully) obvious reasons. I also know about the law of unexpected consequences. I know that prohibiting the use of alcohol (and all sorts of things) created a profitable black market for thugs and turned ordinary folks into criminals. I know that The Gummit spent a lot of time, money, and lives trying to stop something that can't be stopped. I know...

[Dana: Yeah? well, there's always gonna' be murderers and...]

Fine lines, clearly drawn. Some things should be prohibited, some things should be regulated, everything else should be tolerated (but not necessarily socially sanctioned). All three categories require consideration of the law of unintended consequences and the fact that ours is a nation designed primarily to maximize liberty (not democracy, but that's another column).

[Iggy, who looks puzzled, speaks: Um, like, I don't get it, Poppa. I thought temperance meant something like not eating a whole box of Girl Scout cookies at one time? Yeah, and what the hell does socially sanctioned mean? adds Dana.]

It does, sticky one, it does, but my style is edited stream of consciousness. Inhale -- Once I got rolling on the liberty v. forcing other people to adopt one's version of temperance via force of law, and, the law of unexpected consequences, and, social sanctions (which, I'm not going to get into, because, it's time to go and I'll save that for part two, whereupon, I will also address the question you posed that made use of your excellent Girl Scout cookie analogy) it became obvious that temperance would require a part two -- breathe. Poppa loves you.

[Iggy: Oh.  Dana: Sheesh.  Marie-Louise: scratch, scratch]

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

The State of the Zeitgeist

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet) -- the Stickies -- to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Blogaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View original (above↑) to solve the problem/access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My beautiful muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 

Iggy -- Designated Sticky

Dana -- Designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies,

We interrupt our series on the cardinal virtues to bring you this zeitgeist update.

The Donald's reality show has been running for a couple of months now -- all day, every day. There's no getting away from it unless you're a self-sufficient prepper living in the wilderness with a broken short-wave radio.

"All politics is theater." I went a-googlin' and couldn't discover anyone to attribute this to, but it's a very commonly used expression and it rings true to me. I think the expression requires updating to all politics is showbiz. The word showbiz more accurately expresses the spirit of our time. Showbiz implies cutting edge flash and fakery, with a tinge of sleaze. The word theater is too dignified.

[Warning: possible excessive use of metaphors ahead.]

P-T., (pre-Trump) American politics was, and by many folks still is, viewed as follows. Politics is hardball (again, unattributable) and most politicians can't be trusted, it's the nature of the beast. However, it's only the truly corrupt ones, the ones that are only in it for the money/power, that are a real threat.

The rest are sausage makers, and while you might love sausage, particularly the All-American hot dog, most of us wouldn't want to take a tour of, much less work in, a slaughterhouse -- but someone's got to make the sausage.

We're not naive. We understand that a sausage maker is going to get some blood on their hands. Sausage making (and democracy) is messy. We're cool with that, as long as the butcher doesn't add too much fat and keeps his thumb off the scale.

The blood, or at least enough of it, will come out in the wash, that is, at election time. Also, we pay for full-time, lean and hungry, impartial investigators, the fourth estate (what we used to call the press, more commonly now referred to as the media), to monitor the sausage makers, 24 x 7 x 365.25.

At election time, proud, well-informed Americans, meticulously prepared by a world-class education system, upon which we lavish an ever increasing amount of money, carefully and rationally choose the best man person for the job.

In my semi-humble opinion, the three paragraphs after the metaphor warning above, are accurate. After that, not so much. The media, in general (like politicians, in general), are viewed unfavorably by the public for a reason. Many of us find many of them to be biased and/or condescending. Many of us find many of them to be ratings and profits chasing infotainers.

As to why people keep (re)electing the wrong people, that is, anyone you wouldn't vote for, the reasons are legion. Schools are an easy target since overall they seem to keep getting worse. "There's too much money in politics!" is a perennial favorite. That's a good one since it enables us to not only demonize the candidate we don't like, we can also demonize the source of their money.

You may have indeed gone to a crappy grade/high school. You may have gone deeply into debt to attend a crappy college. Even if it wasn't crappy, there's a very good chance you picked the wrong major. Hey, you were 18, you didn't know, well, crap. Your parental units telling you that you would regret your choice later convinced you that you had made the right choice.

Man... if you knew then what you know now. Wouldacouldashoulda. You know, if...

BIG BUT.

Fact is, many people are not all that well informed. Fact is, many most people, most of the time, decide (emotionally, intuitively) first, rationalize later. Gut first, brain later. Not you and I, of course, but most people. This is bleeding edge science,

Anyway, not being well informed can be the most rational course of action. You constantly feel overwhelmed and exhausted because  _______ , and there ain't much you can do about that right now. And statistically speaking, your opinion/vote is insignificant anyway.

The Donald knows this. The Donald is the P.T. Barnum ("Without promotion, something terrible happens... nothing!") of politics. The Donald's not so secret secret is that he speaks directly to your heart, not your brain. Your heart may reject him, but it can't ignore him. The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.

Who do you know that's indifferent to the Donald?

[Dana, my imaginary gentlereader, speaks. Oh yeah, what about Obama? He...]

Barack "no drama" Obama was elected to be the POTUS in spite of having less executive experience than a convenience store manager (not an easy job by the way) because the American people calmly and rationally considered his carefully thought out and logically presented positions and made their choice, right?

Bonkercockie!  

The housing bubble exploded and America was knocked on its ass. Some people are still trying to get up. Iraq was a sorta/kinda win but Afghanistan wasn't/still isn't and many were wondering/are wondering if both had been a bloody and expensive mistake. A frenzy of finger-pointing broke out (that's still going on) and Mr. hope and change could, and did, blame everything that's wrong on planet Earth on Dubya. And continued to do so, years after Dubya moved back to Texas and picked up a paint brush.

So America voted for the other major party, and not the party that offered up John McCain who also had a very thin resume. Another professional politician, with decades of experience -- who had also never actually run, anything. If H. sapiens make rational decisions, why is the phrase, "I voted for the lesser of two evils" so commonly used? Is this the best a rational people can do?

Which is why, when I become king, only former state governors will be permitted to run for president. I know it sounds harsh, but it's for your own (irrational, emotional) good.

Now, if you still think that H. sapiens are rational creatures, consider the following. I'm not smart enough to have figured out that we're subject to what I call gut first, brain later on my own. I simply read about the opinions and discoveries of other people. I particularly credit Jonathan Haidt and Scott Adams.

If I'm aware that the Donald's not so secret secret is his gift for going straight for the gut because that's how you actually influence people to do what you want them to do (how they vote, for example). And if I'm aware that the Donald's often (seemingly) irrational statements, tweets, etc. are part of his game, then surely the highly educated, highly experienced, worldly-wise, cynical media have figured this out as well.

And yet... Instead of pointing out the game to the public when he says something outrageous or crazy, instead of pointing out he's a master of emotional manipulation, most can't help but jump on the bait like starving jackals.

"OMG! how could he say such an obviously untrue/crazy/ignorant/etc. thing? We've done a fact check and... "

Who is acting rationally? Who keeps reacting irrationally? Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

Justice (Part Two)

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet) -- the Stickies -- to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Blogaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View original (above↑) to solve the problem/access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My beautiful muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 

Iggy -- Designated Sticky

Dana -- Designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies,

OK class, let's review.

In Justice (Part One) I discussed the cardinal (hinge) virtue, justice. I posited that its importance is self-evident. I argued that kids in particular, and everyone else in general, are obsessed with justice. That the obsession is summarized by/captured by/epitomized by/etc. the phrase That Ain't Fair!!! Please note the deliberate (and rare, for me at least) use of three exclamation points.

I mentioned the work of Jonathan Haidt, moral psychologist (and one of my heroes). Dr. Haidt's moral foundations theory lists six foundations, one of which is Fairness/Cheating. The relevant Wikipedia article puts it thusly, "Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating. Their bolderization, my italicization. 

[I just made up a new word, bolderization. If you don't believe me, look it up. Oh wait, you can't, it doesn't exist. Bolderization: clicking the bold button of a word processor in order to render a word in a bolder way than other words. GRIN.]

Dr. Haidt, incidentally, didn't weave his theory from whole cloth. His work is based on numerous, and ongoing (check THIS out) experiments and studies. You should also read one of his books, "The Righteous Mind." Life-changing, mind -blowing shtuff written in clean, clear English (as opposed to psychobabble).

Anyway, please note the phrase, "rendering justice according to shared rules." In part one I pointed out that we've lost our consensus, that the late sixties ushered in something I call the Great Fragmentation. I ended the column by asking, "So, how do the members of a fragmented culture agree on what constitutes just and fair?"

[Just who is this we've you speak of cranky one? asks Dana, imaginary gentlereader.]

Good question. Hmm... I guess, no, I know, that when I talk about us, or we, I'm usually referring to muh fellow maricans (Lyndon Johnson saying, my fellow Americans). More broadly, the cultures and people of the West. I really should define my terms more in light of political correctness. Citizens of the planet Earth, please accept my insincere apology.

OK. In this particular case, I'm talking about the fragmentation of American culture. I'm also wildly oversimplifying some of Dr. Haidt's conclusions (sorry doc) and adding a few of my own. Read the book folks, you'll thank me.

H. sapiens (not just maricans) are tribal. This is because belonging to a tribe dramatically increases the chance we might live long enough to reproduce and raise our kids. It dramatically decreases the chance we will be killed and/or eaten before having a chance to do so. Also, get enough people on your team and the next thing you know you'll have civilizations and flush toilets and the like.

It's the drive responsible for us v. them. At one extreme it's total war and the demonization of the enemy. At the other, it's the drive behind competitive sports, which serve as a (usually) harmless outlet. See where I'm going here?

It's the reason why up until the sixties, America -- mostly white, mostly Christian, mostly sharing the same playground, and often preoccupied by wars with them and/or struggling to get three hots and a comfortable cot, were (sometimes more, sometimes less) on the same team.

And then the Boomers came of age in an era of unprecedented prosperity and security. A lot of wonderful things happened.  These ranged from the country officially acknowledging the obscenity of slavery and Jim Crow (mostly and eventually) and passing civil rights legislation, to landing on the moon.

Incidentally, these laws and landing on the moon were accomplished by the Greatest Generation, not by the Boomers, who will go down in history for, well, um... oh, I know! Rock n' Roll! And personal computers. Now we all have a home or pocket version of technology originally developed by the..., um, never mind.

But what happens when a generation of callowyutes, raised to take unprecedented prosperity and security for granted, go through the rebellious/idealistic (some anyway)/I ain't gonna' be like my parental units/I hope I die before I get old adolescent (which we now know typically lasts to the age of 25 or so) stage? And let us not forget to mention relatively easy access to the pill (can you say sexual revolution?) and mind-altering drugs.

Well...

[Oh, one second. Yes, we/they were raised taking the possibility of nuclear annihilation for granted (duck and cover) and we/they might also be drafted and die (the males anyway) in Vietnam.

BIG BUT.

By adolescence most realized that if the nukes were launched we'd probably all be dead anyway. Get under your desk, put your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye. Ishhkabibble. As for Vietnam, pursue a deferment or learn to love (and live with) our neighbors to the North.]

Well, what happens is team America -- left, right, and (ever-shrinking) center -- starts fragmenting into cliques/gangs that divide up the playground like a prison yard.

A lot of water passes under the proverbial bridge. H. sapiens will be/were H. sapiens. And here we are.

We can go a-googling 24x7 and prove anything. How? simple. If you want to believe something you'll ask yourself if you can believe it, then you'll go looking for confirmation. You will, inevitably, find some and then you (well, not you or me of course, but most people) will stop looking.

If you don't want to believe something you'll ask yourself if you must believe it, then you'll go looking for reasons not to. You will, inevitably, find some and then you (well, not you or me of course, but most people) will stop looking.

This is the second most important thing the book taught me. That's a tease 'cause you really should read the book.

Modern tech provides a TV channel and/or a website for every taste, from the sublime to the warped and twisted. New sorta-social media platforms appear every couple of eye blinks. Sorta-social? Yup, choose your friends, real and virtual, tweak your settings (or not, the machine will do it anyway). Poof! your own customized playground of the like-minded, and you don't even have to leave the house.

[So, how do we reach agreement on anything? For example, on what constitutes justice. And what about the other cardinal virtues? Iggy, imaginary grandsticky, poses a question.]

Compromise, don't demonize. Breathe. Electronically fast -- turn off your computer and smartphone for 24 hours and go for a walk, read a book, make brownies, go to your grandstickies eighth-grade band concert.

America's newfound and ever-worsening polarization is fueled by demonization (Haidt) and the 24x7 flow of dizzinformation (me). Poppa loves you.

[Compromise!?! How can you compromise with the devil's minions!?! An imaginary troll has wandered into my personal zeitgeist. BANG! Marie-Louise, my muse, unhesitatingly pulls her piece from her garter holster, blows it's head off, and calmly begins scratching my back.]

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.