It’s Not the Last of the Skald

It's coming together, albeit slowly, but the new site is at least up. No posts, nothing fancy, and it'll go together at my leisure. I'll be using some of the posts from here to flesh out a direction for the new site and to provide a certain continuity. The new site is located at http://www.skalduggery.com and hopefully, the party faithful will find it at least as interesting as what has gone before. Although the direction is changing to some degree, as always, I'll choose whatever strikes my fancy – but I'm aiming to document my current "history/employment" in a corrections/prison setting. Join us for a continuing conversation at a new location!

Cheers,

The Skald

Time to Get Started

I'm feeling the need, the need… well for blogging. I'd like a place that's almost "journal" and putting together poetry, but I also want a place for "reporting" on professional/political issues like my Skalduggery blog. Moreover, I'd like more control over the blog than the blogger site provides. I've been talking with my partner and sounding board – her suggestion, "shop for a good site." Got to love her! So, I'm hoping to make the move to my own website for at least the professional/political/educational stuff. I'm hoping to figure it out enough to include sections for journaling too. Maybe it's middle age, but somehow as an older guy I'd like to contribute to the civic conversation and make some small difference.

I'll advertise and shout it out if I can manage to set up my own website. Somebody's got to want to hear about and comment on ways to improve the "corrections" elements of our justice system. We'll see. I'll save MySpace for the more personal journaling.

Cheers to whoever happens by!

My Apologies!

Excuses – just give me a moment and I'll think of a few for not posting these past two weeks. By tomorrow I'll owe three weeks worth of articles… hmmm. Tuesday is my first actual day off in quite some time, so I'll step up and get busy. However, I'll be starting the Academy in July, so there may be a few missing posts while I'm studying for exams or exercising to excel at the physical readiness test.

The plan is to track my progress at the Academy and provide some thoughts on the training process to qualify as a corrections officer. So then, my few, but faithful readers – I'll catch up my posts Tuesday and Wednesday. Hopefully, I'll remain on my current assignment until I leave for the Academy – but whether I do or not, I'll strive to make a post regardless!

Cheers, you band of brothers, you faithful twenty-one!

Discriminating Tastes: A Masquerade

I've recently started reading another politically "right" rag, The American Spectator, and I chose it primarily because the Clinton Administration decided to send the Justice Department after the magazine – something the rag likes to brag about. Anyway, there was a nice article praising the president of San Diego State University (SDSU) for his judgment to let undercover DEA investigators on the campus. The result was the remarkable drug bust mentioned in recent news stories. More remarkable are his comments to the press about his actions:

Weber, the university's president, said he did not hesitate to allow undercover officers on campus, even if that decision sparked ire. [Earlier versions of the story quoted Weber as specifying faculty ire.]

"We did the right thing," he said. "I think, frankly, more universities should step up and take these kinds of actions."

The Spectator article continues by describing typical actions universities take to ensure their paying customers are healthy, wealthy, and appropriately dumbed-down to current societal standards. Clinton Taylor's paragraph is worth reproducing:

UNIVERSITIES TODAY BUILD mushy cocoons around their students to insulate them from the consequences of their actions. They throw contraceptives at entering freshmen like latex confetti, and then subsidize abortion services if things don't work out. They police for political incorrectness, to defend students' sacred right not to be offended by opinions too far outside the campus political mainstream. Colleges regard their students both as fully enfranchised adults, encouraged to experiment with sex and (tacitly) drugs, and yet at the same time as children who need to be protected from those decisions. What exacerbates the problem is that this license is usually granted in a climate hostile not merely to traditional morality, but to the very concept of judgment and discrimination.

The entire article is a great read, but I set the word police out in red because it highlights a common misperception. Campus police generally ARE peace officers, not "rent-a-cops." Yet these duly constituted law enforcement agents often seem to be paid to look the other way when certain classes of laws are broken – especially if the crime would embarrass the college administration and/or reduce likely admission goals. Take a quick Google search with "college, rapes, crime, and cover-up" as the search terms.

A substantial portion of the article deals with the serious lack of able teaching concerning reasonable judgment. Because the word discriminate has taken on some rather unusual connotations it is rarely used in its most common meaning; that is,

1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b : distinguish differentiate ‹~ hundreds of colors›

2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences ; esp: to distinguish from another like object (Merriam Webster's Dictionary).

I'll close with another section of Taylor's excellent article – just in case you didn't follow the link to read it yourself – because it highlights a bedrock problem in our institutions of higher learning… ok, even our high schools have similar problems:

One of the most memorable passages of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind dealt with Bloom's surprise that his colleague at the University of Chicago saw his professorial mission to be removing all the prejudices from his students. Bloom saw his role as instead inculcating the right prejudices in his students, moral lessons drawn from the best works civilization had to offer. An educated person should discriminate -- between good and evil, false and true, success and failure, for starters.

Otherwise, what's the point of all this expensive education? You can learn "who are you to judge me?" on daytime television, and skip the tuition.

Being politically correct, non-judgmental, and possessing a culturally diverse mindset have essentially removed the ability of our population to make reasonable decisions about their own actions. Yet we shake our heads in wonder when a kid is surprised that he is in trouble for striking another student. It's worse than that…

Taylor reports that Ralph Partridge, one of the DEA officials, said, "A sad commentary is that when one of these individuals was arrested, he inquired as to whether or not his arrest and incarceration would have an effect on his becoming a federal law enforcement officer." That is a sad commentary.

Stay safe and well all – and reinforce to your kids that discrimination extends beyond issues of race and gender, and yes, it extends even beyond matters of taste.

But I was born this way!

A few days ago I participated in a hackneyed discussion with some fellow officers at work. It centered on the nature and morality of homosexuality. Mostly, I am tired of the topic, but I also realize the "controversy" is here to stay for some time to come. The reason I mention the topic today is that the tired line of argument that was used to justify homosexual behavior is ultimately so ridiculous. So then, before you tune out, let's make a few things clear. First, I am not going to address the morality or immorality of homosexual behavior per se. Second, I am not going to address the truth or falsity of whether there is or is not a "gay gene," or whether homosexual behavior is biologically determined. Finally, the aim of this post is not to provide a positive or negative judgment about homosexual behavior.

Before I do get to the aim of the post, since part of the background is about the notion of being "born gay," it seems reasonable to provide a few starting points for independent research concerning the "gay gene." For a somewhat "moderate" view of things that contains a bit of history and looks at some of the research from an obviously postmodernist perspective try out PBS' Is Homosexuality Inherited? by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet. For a contrarian and less than moderate view that traces both the history and science involved try out Ryan Sorba's The Born Gay Hoax. With these as a starting point, finding any number of social science perspectives that fit with one's preconceived notions of homosexual behavior should be a breeze!

Now then, what is the aim of this post? Simply to make the point that claiming one was "born this way" is not a justification for any kind of behavior. The correlative to this is clearly that homosexuality primarily describes a behavior – not an identity.

During our discussion, the group I'll call the "religious right wing-nuts," argued belligerently that homosexual behavior was a sin, morally wrong, and should be legally sanctioned. The group I'll call the "loony left nutroots," argued just as belligerently that homosexuals were "born that way," and therefore should not be punished any more than someone who is born black should be punished for an accident of birth. Mostly I was just listening, but when the "born that way" comment was made I "couldn't help myself" and said, "That's an incredibly poor argument for justifying homosexual behavior." I was pretty much immediately attacked as a bigot and Nazi like the right wing-nuts were being attacked. The following paragraphs reflect what I tried to explain to both parties.

At this point, I don't care whether homosexual behavior is right or wrong. You guys on the right are saying a specific BEHAVIOR is wrong, while you guys on the left ignore the behavior being addressed and try to equate the behavior to an identity. The point is truly simple: two guys or two girls having sex is nothing like simply being black. You guys on the loony left need a new argument! Don't use this one, it's useless!

For the sake of argument, let's pretend for a moment that homosexuality is somehow like race – one is simply born that way – and that sodomy is illegal. One is not punished for being black, white, or brown; however, a black, white, or brown person will be punished for murdering his neighbor – because it is against the law. Likewise, a person would not be punished for being a homosexual; one would be punished for a behavior called sodomy.

Now then, here in today's America, very few states punish homosexual behavior. However, to extend this line of thinking a bit further, let's make another comparison. Again, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that there is a strong biological/genetic component to homosexuality. Let us also pretend, for the sake of argument, that there is a strong biological/genetic component to pedophilia. Since pedophiles are "born that way," and are unlikely to change their sexual preference, should that somehow make their attendant behaviors as legal and moral as the homosexuals' behaviors?

Do not think that this comparison is a stretch. Dr. Michael Werthheimer in A Clash of Worldviews interview, while discussing pedophilia and the fact that pederasty was normalized in ancient Greek culture made the following comments in response to the question: "[I]s ANYTHING, in your view, an objective disorder? Would you consider pedophilia normal and desirable, if a particular society says it is? Could a pedophilic relationship ever be "good"?

I'm sure that various somatogenic problems due to severe brain trauma may be close to "objective" disorders. But I know of no convincing evidence that even pedophilia is harmful to the boy. In ancient Greece, for example, a pedophilic relationship with a young boy was viewed as the ideal kind of relationship for an older man. What's the actual evidence--not just principled moral prejudgment--that such a relationship is damaging to the boy?

That's why I said the "born gay" notion is not the point. If people (whether gay or straight) fail to think about the premises of their arguments and the logical conclusions that can be drawn from those premises, then too soon simple identity becomes a justification for immorality and illegal behavior. So then my friends I refer to as loony left nutroots, please find a better argument!

Next – let's explore postmodernism and deconstruction! [groan]

Until then – stay well, stay safe!

A Return to the Fray

I've been out of the loop for awhile now, partly because I'd been laid off, and partly, like an online friend and fellow blogger, I'd lost both the energy and desire to maintain a blog. Friends and family both have been asking when I'd get back to my duties as a blogger, and initially, it seemed like a bad idea. I'm at work in a new field, a field that I actually pursued an education to better qualify myself for employment – and more importantly, a field in which I had an abiding interest. Blogging would unavoidably involve my new career path – and since I value my employment, I really wasn't sure I should pick up the virtual pen.

Gary, over at Life on the Installment Plan, is clearly able to write about his experience, and so I've decided to be at least as stalwart as he… if he picks up his virtual pen again (wink, wink). So, the Skald's saga continues, albeit with a small revision in perspective – politics? Of course. Religion and philosophy? Can't help myself. The Criminal Justice System? Most certainly.

The aim is to post a weekly article – I'll see you then!

Friends, Christians, and Communists

I received a note from John, once my boss, with an amazing video showcasing the abilities of a high-speed camera. I liked the video, but he, like Gravebinder and a few others, reminded me that I'm falling down on the job with respect to my blog. I hate it when friends are right, truly. In my own defense… ok, there's no real defense, but my excuse is actually trying to decide what to write about among the myriad choices is <whine> difficult! So then, I've chosen an old pet peeve…

I've heard that nasty word "social justice" once again, and I'm always interested enough to ask my erstwhile conversation partner what he means by this interesting compound idea. Erstwhile? Former conversation partners because I'm generally opposed to the common or popular notion of what "social justice" constitutes, and my opposition seems to color me as Satan himself to some of the liberal nutroots I've engaged in conversation (despite their intense opposition to religion, it is ok to label opponents as the minions of Beelzebub). Taking the adjective social away from the concept at least leaves the actual noun being modified in some fashion. Make no mistake, English works precisely this way.

"No, no, no, you don't understand. It wasn't simply a man; it was a little green man!"

Granted, that's poking a little fun, but whether used rationally or irrationally, that's the way we use our language. Clearly, progressives are trying to make it plain that they are NOT talking about the classical meaning of justice, and hence, the adjective "social." I had always thought justice by nature and definition must be social. Something else is meant in this case – so, for comparison, let's take a look at the origin of the word "justice." I'll use the Online Etymology Dictionary:

1140, "the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment," from O.Fr. justise, from L. justitia "righteousness, equity," from justus "upright, just." The O.Fr. word had widespread senses, including "uprightness, equity, vindication of right, court of justice, judge." The word began to be used in Eng. c.1200 as a title for a judicial officer. Meaning "the administration of law" is from 1303. Justice of the peace first attested 1320. In the Mercian hymns, L. justitia is glossed by O.E. rehtwisnisse.

Generally, "the administration of law" was once a common understanding of the term "justice." On the other hand, the term "social justice" uses the adjective "social" to incorporate the notions often associated with socialism/communism. The always popular "take from those who are more prosperous and give to those who are less prosperous" – whether on a national or global scale depends largely on who is promoting the idea. For example, Anthony Brunt at the University of Iowa puts it this way:

The first component of social justice is a minimum standard of living in the realms of employment, health, housing, and education. This is the portion of social justice that is best dispensed through government agencies. According to the 1999 U.N. Human Development Report, for forty billion dollars the most disadvantaged portions of the world can achieve basic healthcare, education, sanitation facilities, potable water, and an adequate food supply for all. To contrast this amount in relative terms, last year Microsoft chairperson Bill Gates had an estimated net worth of fifty-two billion dollars. I do not believe that allocating an additional forty billion dollars will strain those living in a state of luxury.

Only somewhat tongue in cheek, Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton in A Field Guide to Left-Wing Wackos, says that communists are "Anyone who likes the things you have, wants them for his own, and doesn't mind if a totalitarian state is what it takes to make that happen." This idea of using a government to accomplish their ends is highlighted by Brunt in the next paragraph of his paper, albeit for logistical concerns.

Why even mention this topic? Because I find it at least a little ironic and humorous that this unusual group of liberals shares so much in common with the very people they are so opposed to having any influence on our society. Truly, the only real difference between the liberal nutroots and the Christians in this case is the means by which they ameliorate poverty. I really cannot say it better than C.S. Lewis on this topic, and he makes the point so forcefully, I'll close with a small portion from The Problem of Pain:

Those who would most scornfully repudiate Christianity as a mere "opiate of the people" have a contempt for the rich, that is , for all mankind except the poor. They regard the poor as the only people worth preserving from "liquidation," and place in them the only hope of the human race. But this is not compatible with a belief that the effects of poverty on those who suffer it are wholly evil; it even implies that they are good. The Marxist thus finds himself in agreement with the Christians in those two beliefs which Christianity paradoxically demands – that poverty is blessed and yet ought to be removed. (C.S. Lewis, 1940, pp. 108-109)

P.S. "And that's Entertainment"

Cheers!