Religion Establishes Three Things:

1. Social control–offered in the form of “#moral guidance”–in place of #civil#ethics* — and to fill in where civil ethics give way to local tradition, crime, differences in social behavior and are thus porous.

2. The ancillary benefit of comfort to the infirm and #FeebleMinded in times of hopelessness.

3. The #Justification of nonsense political policies–regionally, nationally & internationally–allowing for institutionalized corruption, unfair electioneering, #VoterSuppression and #prejudice–via the inherent #division religion provides automatically.

When Meiji sought to modernize and unify #Japan, he put all religious parishes–Buddhist, #Shinto and #Christian under direct political control of the #government. Earlier in Japan’s history, #Buddhism had been outlawed to make way for the local religion and the spurning of a foreign ones. What this accomplishes is nationalism–something we see in #ChristainNationalism now–supporting #Trump. The three components of this are always:

1. Superstition (“god[s]”); provides cover & approval for nonsense
2. Nationalism; provides “Us or Them”-ism and #xenophobia
3. War; provides economy and hegemony

We all know about the #DivineRightOfKings in #Europe. It was overturning of this–via the #Enlightenment and kings being dismembered in front of crowds in France and England which birthed democracy.

And today, in Russia & Ukraine and in #America–religion is again being used to control those same feeble-minded-type people to justify #war; in our case–in the US–the war is not much different from that in Russia and Ukraine: Against #modernity and for #ethnicsupremacy.

I guess some modern-day Republicans want to see heads cut off during the next enlightenment and want to control human rights now–for women and people of other complexions….

Remember: “Religion Poisons Everything” – #ChristopherHitchens

What good old Hitch forgot was the last word: ‘good.’ Religion poisons everything good.

Virtue save democracy.
CA
Tokyo

If you would prefer other media, there are links in the comments.

*The #SecondAmendment ensures not only #FreedomOfSpeech, but the #SeparationOfChurchAndState — specifically for the purposes of disallowing the control religion has over a state that the majority deem to be a democracy; it also prevents the path to the Divine Right of Kinds (or as we like to say in Conservative America: #UniversalPresidentialPower.) The downside of the Second Amendment is that it ensures different morals and ethics state to state–and this is why we do not have (as other countries less religious do) a code of ethics everyone honors morally–in America.

Links:
The Russian Orthodox Leader at the heart of Putin’s Ambitions
Russia’s War in Ukraine Leads to Historic Split in The Orthodox Church

America Yesterday, Today And Tomorrow

Tonight I watched 22 July, about the Knights Templer bombing and student political camp massacre in Norway in 2012–in which 77 people were killed by one xenophobic, right wing operative whose organization wanted to keep Islam out of Europe.

If America does not wish to see more xenophobic, right wing extremism–either in the form of voter suppression, lies about stolen elections, the gutting of human rights from the courts, legislature or mentally unbalanced presidents–or seditionist and ethnophobic acts of terrorism–we all must tow a virtuous line in thought, behavior, action and at the polls–because we all affect one another.

We must put personal gain, party gain and ideological gain in the back seat–and lead with a character of courageous conscience, relying on right thought, right action and right speech with an eye toward equality of opportunity, fairness in public and private life and in our choices. The rational, good-natured and mentally-balanced who believe in E Pluribus Unum are my choir–so the extremists on the left and right (in government and outside of it) are my intended audience; you must ask yourself if you would rather be right or happy, right or fair, right or just–and the virtuous choices to those options will lead you to depart from division, from lying, from corruption, from hate, from disenfranchisement, from cancel culture, from revenge and from tearing our country its last wound; the right choices in those options will not see you voting out of spite, voting out of loyalty against reason and compassion, voting–for tribe rather than country; this is all the path of fear and cowardice–the monkey mind path.

You are human, but only insofar as you exercise superior judgement for the benefit of all. If you cannot do these things, you do not belong as a citizen in an Egalitarian Democratic Republic; and if that is the case, you should not try to transform America into a left-wing or right-wing state of fear and cruelty. If that is what you need–a totalitarian state, a theocratic state, a state wherein you do not want the best for all without forcing ideas on us, a state in which you can accept losing an election or paying a small increase for the less fortunate to have medical care and housing and education, a state where people can love whom they naturally are predisposed to loving, a state where a woman can face the horrible choice of choosing to end a pregnancy to save herself or an nonviable pregnancy from ruining lives–then you can go to China, Russia, Turkey, Myanmar, or any number of tin-pot dictatorships in the world and try to bend those places to your will; you will have more success in those places. Please don’t stay here.

America–by the numbers–according to polls and statistics is a progressive nation; that is why it is still the destination of many peoples of the world–despite the right wing hold on our health care system, our gun laws, and now a woman’s rights over her own sovereign body. And that is why the Founders wrote the Constitution the way they had–faults and all (Rome wasn’t built in a day).

If you have the capacity to change your mind and think like Homo Sapiens, or “Wise Humans,” and you can reason and grow in love for the differences in people and realize we are stronger with a non-mono-culture and a diverse nation of diverse peoples–whatever your issue–you can get help, to turn your heart to love and your mind to rationality–the paths of courage and progress.

This means you don’t have to go to the shameful trouble of defying your lights, cheating in elections, hating and taking up arms; you don’t have to fear people born differently from you. You don’t have to attempt to put a square peg in a round hole–trying to change an entire nation that will not let you and your kind take us back to 1939 or any permutation of it; you only have to change your mind–and then you can join us–no bloodshed, no crime, no irrational, hair-brained conspiracy theories, no death and no jail time.

America is for everyone. It doesn’t matter what pressures and stage of consciousness the Founders were bound by; they were righteous and virtuous enough–ahead of their time enough–to create the first modern–and longest-lasting–democratic republic capable of becoming more and more fair and of righting its wrongs.

In America, we honor the law, not the blood; it was set up that way for a reason. And that reason is the Framers were polymaths of high intellect–and thus of high moral character–as high as science and the philosophy of the day would carry their minds. If they had not written and amended the Constitution the way they had, people would still be paying a fine for not attending church, could not run for office without passing a religious test, wouldn’t be able to travel state to state freely, African Americans and other people of different complexions and physiognomies would not have the right to vote–nor would women–and children would be laborers in the fields and factories–and so much more primitiveness; not because the people who settled America or who were there first were of some particular orientation or make-up, but because power corrupts people–so human beings all over this oblate spheroid spinning in space work to make power a community blessing– through the progress of consensus. This is is greatness. One cannot make anything great if it is only great for a select group and burdonsome for everyone else; that’s tyranny.

Making America great does not–cannot–include taking us backward. Progress always includes more freedom–and the direction toward freedom is forward–with responsibility, not in unscrupulous retreat toward tyranny, via lies, and corruption.

And the first step forward always begins with courage; stop being afraid. Besides, it’s not a good look.

On Love, Free Will And Being Happy: Global or Picayune Decisions?

Written April 13, 2022

People seem to have no control over their feelings – generally. People, for the most part, say they are hostage to their feelings, but can control how they react to those feelings.

And the more experience-oriented feelings–the intrinsic ones, for example, seem to be in control of us: feelings of anger, fear, apprehension, excitement… love – at least at first.

We can change our states of mind to reduce the amount of time in which we feel bad, for instance–but more about that later.

We certainly have little control over our feelings of taste, inclination, favorite things–but we feel we have control over where we go, whom we spend time with, what to read, watch or listen to. Some philosophers and scientists say this is largely, if not entirely inner-driven, too.

This inner force, in us–our personality, seems to have more control over what we do than anything else–unless the overall conditions have changed. And maybe we can have some will over those.

Do we really have free will? I don’t think so–not in total, or maybe not much at all (the science doesn’t prove it; in fact, it proves the opposite)–but there are moments, perhaps–in which more than our inclination can come to bear–and we experience those non-impulsive or overly confident frames of mind wherein we may feel we are between steps, ‘on the fence’, ‘in the waiting room’ – or at thresholds. I have spent seeming eternities in such ‘places’–often remarking that my life seems like it is taking place between stepping stones, or at a bus stop. I have spent ages waiting for people who perhaps never were really fully there with me–or so it seems now. But if I’m honest, I probably had a lot to do with that. These problems–retrospect and time have taught me, can be remedied by self-esteem driven goal-orientation, listening more and being a fixed entity, less–in other words, adapting, but also put things in a time frame, in which they come to fruition or one moves on… But this is all prelude to what I really want to talk about, because these issues of decision in the moment–or scenario–the things that delay us, are more to do with the small decisions that stem from the big ones….

We can experience an actual big decision-making moment-and not realize we are amidst it. It is at this time that we can decide to change course, go forward, go back, ask for help–or give it (or not)–stay the course (or not)–or sit down and do nothing until we decide–maybe to…not decide? I have spent a lot of time here, too.

When you are content, or at least present and peaceful, you can be very patient; at these times we are staying the course.

Someone very close to me once said “you are the most patient person.” But if we are patient without awareness of what we are waiting for–that is–if a situation is not what we think it is, this is not patience; it is not seeing where we are going. It’s delusion. The only way to avoid this is to know where you want to go, how you want to get there, whom you want to go with and how to judge along the way. Once you have decided these things–then the only thing you need on the journey is proper feedback: all the necessary information to judge your progress. You have to receive this from surroundings–and any fellow travelers with you; are they driving you? Are they pulling you? Are they or pushing you? Or–worse, are they only along for the ride for as long as it benefits them–prepared to jump out at the first opportunity for something better.

Some of the moments with the wrong partners or in the wrong terrain can turn on spontaneity–which can be good if we have been avoiding the wrong steps–and if involving that which we have wanted or been curious about–but others can be a timeless interludes of walking in the dark, into deep water to comfortable to indicate it will soon swallow us–or on paths over a precipice, off which we can go tumbling. This happens when those around us have their best interest–not ours–at heart, and they just want company, approval–or worse, obedience –and for some unresolved reasons we comply

That was a bit of a tangent. What I am really getting at, here, is that in moments–when we aren’t rushed, and we aren’t pressed for a spontaneous decision–and we aren’t frivolous and carefree–when we are either content enough to take our time–or at least be peaceful and thoughtful–we can actually change or make our minds up in a way of orientation:

To repeat:

What I am eventually getting at, here, is that in those moments–when we aren’t rushed, and we aren’t pressed for a spontaneous decision–and we aren’t frivolous and carefree–and we are content enough to take our time–we can actually change or make our minds up in a way of orientation.

We can actually change or make our minds up in a way of orientation.

We can actually change or make our minds up in a way of orientation:

‘Maybe I no longer want to watch horror movies’ – rather than simply this horror movie.’

‘Maybe I no longer want to eat dairy’, rather than decide between the ice cream or the yogurt tonight.’

‘Perhaps I don’t want to spend my life defending potential criminals’ – or …‘what if I can’t paint as much as I need to as a public defender’, and would rather be a bailiff, do social justice art in all the free time I would have not being a lawyer. Or–maybe I would like to be a political cartoonist–or moral philosopher–painting on my holidays.

A friend of mine was contemplating a career in political science-during law school. His classmate asked, ‘but wouldn’t you rather have a Porsche and a beach house? My friend answered–“sure I would; when everyone can have a Porsche and a beach house.” I think right there, my friend realized that the work he would do to acquire the rich life would not allow him to feel proud of that arrangement. He made an orientation change: he put his effort before the spoils. Having an upper class lifestyle and a professional title were not as important to him–he realized–as whom he would be, living with himself.

You see–or maybe you know–it’s about how we frame the questions–and that is about what questions we ask: are they picayune or global? Sometimes they have to be both–indeed both are necessary at different times–but the global questions can delete a whole host of other picayune questions we won’t have to face to if we have the presence of mind to make global decisions. When we think of it this way it seems ridiculous to go to law school and engage in a career all about ethics–one in which the time put in will be enormous and difficult–for material rewards alone. This leaves no space for heartfelt fulfillment–which is a key ingredient in happiness.

Let’s stop here and say that a global decision is one that encompasses a way of life; and a picayune decision is one that falls into a category of life that we have chosen–perhaps by accident, or foolishly.

For another example, if I give up sugar, dieting takes a much more global turn–or almost becomes non-dieting; it’s the same with meat. If we just decide not to eat certain things that make up a lot of the foods that cause our problems, there is little indecision or opportunity for abuse and the wrong decisions down the road. Let’s say we do both; we swear off meat, or at least beef and pork and sugar too. When we are faced with cookies and cake or hot dogs and hamburgers–there is no indecision, no limiting how much of these addictive foods we can enjoy and no binge eating, guilt and dieting to worry about. We have changed the type of person we are–or, the type of food we eat–and replaced our protein sources. This was a global decision.

When it comes to careers, I like to quote Arnold Schwarzenegger; he says

‘instead of asking what you want to be–ask yourself what kind of person you want to be.


This kind of question is global and not picayune: it knocks a lot of options off the table and adds a lot of other ones.

I made a decision–which I sometimes regret–when I was 11: Aside from the problems I had with math, I realized I did not want to kill anyone. (Hold on, here; this will make sense in a moment.) That’s a global decision–about me, as a person and the kind of person I want to be.

That’s a global decision–about me, as a person and the kind of person I want to be.…

making decisions about what kind of person you want to be.

That is where your inner happiness comes from–by the way. Very few people do this. They decide what career they want, with little concern given to what kind of person they want to be.

So–I realized, right there, that even if I were good enough at math–or it didn’t matter–I was not going to become a fighter pilot, which was pretty much the path for men to become the fliers of spacecraft–astronauts.

Though the newly minted Space Shuttle program was in full swing–featuring mission specialist astronauts–not pilot astronauts, and Harrison Schmidt, a professor of geology, had gone to the moon– when I thought of astronauts, I wanted to be the pilot of space vehicles, not a passenger–which is another global decision, when you think about it….

You can see where this is going. We have some kind of free will–within the parameters of our general personalities, or our general decisions–which allow us to make larger decisions when we have the time and presence of mind–that can make the smaller decisions easier in the future. We can do this with–as we have seen–diet, career, relationships (Did you glean that from my suggestions above about my ex?; well, that’s neither here nor there, now, what’s the point?)–and we do this regarding ethics, as well–or we can.

I decided to stop going to church with one of these global decisions. At the time, I had not heard of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s suggestion, that we decide what kind of person we want to be, but that was what I was doing; I realized that though Christianity taught me and love and forgiveness–for me it required that I would have to accept a lot of ideas that simply are not true — scientifically, historically, morally, and to accept those ideas, I would become a dishonest person–and for me, honesty is everything; it is the foundation of all that can be said to be moral, and what is religion supposed to be about if not morality? I thought, if at the core of my personal constitution there has to be a bedrock of ideas that do not make sense to me–indeed, if I could come up with a better foundation for an ethical life, based on things I know and can attest to believe with no compromises (in less than five minutes–as Sam Harris says), well, then, there is no point in being part of a group that not only has to do the opposite, but also betrays a lot of infamy. I didn’t want that in my closet. So I can be Christ-like, where what Jesus said and did was moral and responsible by post-enlightenment standards of ethics, human rights and so on–but going to church regularly would group me in with a lot of dishonest, misguided and misguiding people. Besides, Jesus said not to pray in the temples reciting pre-written prayers; he said to pray in private–from what I know. (I would have to check with Dr. Bart Ehrman to make sure of that–because, I respect good nurtured scholars who tell the truth and are the top experts in their fields.

I more or less do the same thing with regard to diet, dating and perhaps a few other aspects of my life; I make global decisions based on how the little decisions they will uncover will affect me as a person and allow me to be the person I want to be–or not.

So, I “became” a Mindfulness Practitioner, or Zennist. THough some see this as a religion, is is not to me; it is a spiritual practice and philosophy, like the Stoicism I also honor–of Zeno, Epictetus, Socrates, Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius–my distant Roman and Greek ancestors….

I practice Zen and Stoicism, because they work; Zen allows us to clear, examine, learn and focus our minds, and it improves our health, posture, and thinking processes; there is no compulsion to think things are true which are not, and this helps us sharpen our character with honesty and integrity. This is done with vapassana meditation. Additionally, the Four Noble Truths and The Eight Fold Path are a wonderfully wise and sensible path to reducing suffering.

For me–if your world view has been decided for you, you can’t really make decisions on your own, learn things for yourself or be whom you want to be–and that is the surest way to inhibit free will of all the possible ways. And to the chagrin of the religious–that is not so “we can sin and do as we damn please.” It is so can do the opposite and be moral.

Be the person you want to be–and the diet, love, career and philosophy (or religion) will follow as a matter of course–your own course–not someone else’s!

CΔ
Tokyo
©︎ Copyright 2022 – 2024 Carl Atteniese II / All rights reserved

Will Smith Strikes Chris Rock Onstage

Can we put into human context the insult taken from jokes? Is what happens in the arts important in a time of war? What is a joke? What is the job of a comedian? What can you do as an audience member?

At the 2022 Academy Awards ceremony in Hollywood, host and comedian Chris Rock made a comedic statement involving actress Jada Pinkett Smith, which I think was more a subtle comment about the movie industry than about her shaved head per se–which is a result of her alopecia–an auto-immune disease which causes hair loss. The joke was fairly innocuous—especially if it meant what I thought it did—Namely that these days one has to be from a particular population to be adequately eligible for a role in a Hollywood movie – something I don’t agree with…. I won’t retell the joke here, as seeing it live will enable you to judge it in real time–after your natural reaction. I will say that Rock had the presence of mind to preface his joke with a token statement of affection for Mrs. Pinkett Smith–perhaps to soften the blow of the punch line; this is something that comedians often must do these days, in a variation of disclaimer, much as in common American conversation is necessary in an overly sensitive society, where nuance is lost and meaning becoming more and more in danger of dying.

Rapper and actor Will Smith, Jada Pinkett-Smith’s husband–in reaction to the joke (and either likely missing its nuanced meaning)–or rather, in self-correcting-response to his own initial reaction to the joke (because he laughed at it himself)–strode to the stage and forcefully slapped Chris Rock in the face–very hard–so hard that the comedian’s head followed in the trajectory of the force of Smith’s blow–in a large arc.

After returning to his seat, a heated Smith–in answer to Rock’s expressions of surprise from the stage–shouted an expletive-inflected warning to Rock–across the audience–twice. A shaken Chris Rock said he would comply. So Smith not only sucker-punched Rock, like an effeminate male—he then bullied the comedian from his seat.

I like to engage people on Facebook about important issues–from a philosophical perspective–meaning, in order to think clearly about them. In a post on Facebook, a commenter said that she “understood” Will Smith’s actions against Chris Rock–a turn of phrase that often goes a long way in our culture in justifying behaviors and attitudes. This is an important issue, because that is unacceptable and dangerous in this case.

In another post comment, someone basically said that the affairs of actors are not important in a time when other very crucial events are transpiring–such as the war in Ukraine. Specific mention was made of the income and lifestyle levels of the actors in question. This is what I said in response to both comments:

Can We Justify Reactions of Violence Over Words–Especially Words in Comedy?
I don’t think understanding Will Smith’s violent and threatening behavior at the Academy Awards should bleed into condoning it. In fact, getting angry is not natural: it is a decision based on poor self control, entitlement, ignorance and poor education–and also can be a result of sociological conditioning as well as biochemical health–which can (in the latter case) stem from not only brain-related issues, but also blood chemistry, such as in the case of hypoglycemia and the over-production of adrenaline and cortisol. Insofar as health issues may not be based on decision–they can be exacerbated by decision; for example, I am a reactive hypoglycemic, which is a blood-glucose-related biochemical metabolic issue that can affect my moods and reactions (or lack thereof) to stress; so the decision comes in my being mindful, eating right, practicing Zen and adopting benevolent orientations therefrom to mitigate the responses my condition can engender. Will Smith might not have been able to execute the presence of mind necessary to mitigate his biological–and thus–behavioral responses at the Academy Awards ceremony yesterday–as I have had trouble with these things in the past–but he can and should take steps to be more prepared to do so in the future.

What A Joke Is And What It Represents
Feeling bad, alarmed, frightened or resentful may be natural offshoots of a stress-reaction, but there is nothing good about having such a simple-minded state of consciousness that it eliminates the understanding necessary to realize that a joke is the expression of something we don’t author–a thought that passes through the mind; yes, we craft that thought in the composition of the poetry that is a joke, and yes, we can choose not to utter that thought or joke at certain times and in certain company, but there is something fascinating about the natural state of the brain which allows it to speak to the other self within our consciousness–which is commonly called “thought”; and that it has no author and thus causes no injury. Putting it into a joke or other expression is a sort of witness to be shared by others–which makes us laugh and causes the examination of the human mind and experience. ‘Oh! But if it hurts someone’s feelings, we should suffer with it!’, some think. Keep it for private conversation?’ Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t think so. For several reasons—not the least in importance of which is that jokes are the domain of exploring ideas we can’t or don’t express seriously—and are by design not meant to be serious or taken seriously, thus not intended to offend; indeed, offense at a joke makes the offended party a joke—precisely because s/he is apparently too thoughtless or maladjusted to realize the point of a joke is levity, not seriousness. And — because jokes not heard relegate some ideas to the silence of the mind—darkening the understanding of the human experience.

The fact that we laugh at an idea and its premise and the statements supporting its conclusion–the “punch line”– is proof of the truth and/or validity in the “argument” inherent in the idea–that the cortex created and we share as common experience as human beings–and we take wonder at this. The laugh is the truth meter–which validates automatically the humanity in the joke and the reasoning in our unconscious mind with which the visceral response of the body is produced. And yet… sometimes–according to societal conventions depending on culture–we have to be sensitive to the fact that some do not–indeed never — appreciate this.

Getting angry at a comedian ignores all this (if we have even realized it or stopped to think about the matter in the first place) and approaches the surreal in its ridiculous, but then, everyone cannot be so in love with humanity, cognizant of what a laugh signifies, philosophical and thoughtful enough to think about it or at ease such that he or she will not let egocentric interpretations of a joke trigger entitlement and anger and cause violence.

The Joke Not Spoken But Rewarded
Indeed, we choose not to utter some ideas, because we know others–like we, ourselves, are frail–but anger about this is just an ignorant celebration of a lack of understanding of humanity, biology and the need to laugh at difficult aspects of life–regardless of who is displaying the lack of understanding, entitlement, ignorance and/or self control. All of these (and more) are what compassion is about.

Chris Rock and all comedians exhibit compassion–but limit our growth as people–when he and they censor themselves–and we give them credit for this–but it is a form of babysitting of our egos when we do this–if you get right down to it.

Possessing and exhibiting true love and maturity—indeed intelligence and generosity—would mean not getting angry at others for their thoughts–expressed in words–and it would enable us to appreciate the conversation, even when uncomfortable truths make us laugh—however self-consciously—from time to time.

The Comedian
Let us recall that we are talking about the work of a comedian–an artist with a certain license–which we give him–to look flexibly at life from philosophical, serious, silly, absurd, and inane perspectives; that is to say, to find the irony and folly in human ego, society and culture in general–to name a few aspects of the the human experience.

Chris Rock was hired to do this at a gathering of theater and movie artists–in a venue at which roasting people is a time-honored-tradition. This was not a ride on a bus or the subway. It wasn’t a thanksgiving dinner. It wasn’t strangers sitting in the dentist office. Most importantly–and perhaps the most important thing I can say in this essay–which must be remembered by all functioning members of society is:

This is comedy–different forms of humor aimed at poking fun at life, including at us all–and it is, by design, not serious. We can say serious things in the performance of comedy, but even when we do, it is to provide one function—as well as potentially many others: to make people laugh unselfconsiously. As participants—in the audience, on the stage or at the writer’s desk—our presence is testament to our agreeing with and understanding this. If we cannot agree to that or won’t—we don’t belong in the forum, because in the end, listening to a comedian is a voluntary act—it is not a mandated exercise commanding our attendance by government decree—nor is it payed for by our taxes. It is the sharing of a mind of ideas—which is a gift; if you don’t want it, walk out and refuse the gift. You can do that; what you can’t do is object to the content in such an arrogant and uneducated way as to say, waiter, I don’t like this; take it back—because you—as an audience member are not a client, not a customer, certainly not a director or designer of the act; you’re a spectator, a witness, a guest in someone’s house—in this case, the house of the mind of the comedian.

As such, were Robin Williams still with us–and were he present, we could imagine his saying ‘touche.’ We could also see Sarah Sanders reacting in a similar way. One problem here–perhaps–is that Will Smith is not a comedian. He has performed as a comedic actor–but these are not the same things.

Is This Important Now?
Feeling distaste for the news about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock and being concerned about other issues in its stead is natural and normal, if we are categorizing the importance of world events, I guess, but sort of depends on an apples and oranges kind of thinking that demeans the problems people have–if they do not reach epic proportions–but that all depends on whether you think “small” events possess the potential to create large impact.

I might suggest we realize that the worldly issues some find relevant and pressing make this about us, if we focus on them; this situation, involving actors and comedians, is about pillars of our entertainment community–important because that means The Arts–important to any society which wants to retain its soul and a lot more than that. As such, the people in the arts, rich and famous or not, have feelings–and public (meaning social) impact. Indeed, celebrities often possess the leisure and moral latitude to do more for us spiritually than politicians do for us practically. Look at Mr. Sean Penn, right now. Look at the impact Glen Close, Tim Robbins, Susan Serandon, Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Jimmy Stewart, Robert Redford, Barbara Streisand, Matt Damon–and others from the stage and screen can have. All of these actors and directors and cinematic producers are civic and social activists participating in philanthropy that benefits the world. Alan Alda comes to mind–with his work interviewing all kinds of influential scientists and others in his own field; it matters what happens to these people.

Celebrities are loved and cherished by many, which is no small feature of their accomplishments. Astronauts and scientists were inspired by such productions and their actors as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek, and The Right Stuff…. How actors, writers, producers and directors see the world and how they behave and are treated can be a stage in itself–upon which to see what happens to the most fortunate and talented among us–a litmus test and social experiment in society.

Thank you for reading.

CA
Tokyo

Regulate Social Media

Regulate social media—as journalism—because it is that when its landscape of ideas affects politics—and because having regulation in our hands is better than having it one owner’s hands.

The Olympics Must be for Egalitarian Democratic Republics

While many would likely say ‘athletes shouldn’t be penalized for the actions of their governments at the #Olympics’, I ask ‘when will citizens out of government start becoming responsible for the transgressions of their nations—whose governments operate at their behest and with the flow of their tax dollars?’

If a country were barred from the Olympics for military incursion, domestic denial of human rights or human rights abuses—its citizenry would feel shame, the athletes disgust, and then the true, natural state of affairs would re-emerge which disappeared long ago: social penalty for anti-social (and anti-democratic/despotic) bad behavior.

The Olympics is supposed to be about peace—so why are we honoring #despot nations by accepting their participation?; we would be barred for our transgressions as well. Fair is fair. The penalty for bullying nations or the denial of human and civil rights would apply to any country that otherwise wishes to participate.

If athletes thus leave their repeat transgressor nation (when allowed!) in favor of immigraion to true democracies, let those loser, jilted nations deal with it. Maybe it would move their people to better manage their governments and societies. We must stop awarding atrocity. What message does it send—to other nations, to our nations—to our children?

Currently, nations like China, Russia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia—they have no right (but they certainly have business and political agendas —meaning moneyed interests—in showing off at the games) participating at games which are to be about good will and good faith—yet they regularly opperate in bad faith.

Why should such transgressor nations benefit from the glory and brotherhood at such legendary and honored events on the world stage—treated as equals? They don’t believe in equality!

China exerts pressure on Taiwan to call itself by another name, threatening Taiwan and Taiwan’s allies over the issue they roundly lost out on—historically!

Since when is being a sore loser a gain in sports? These countries are giant “Trumpers” in the form of nations, pretending legitimacy—which we award in recognition, diplomatically and in sport—as they are perpetual bad sports: bellicose, rude, domineering, troublesome—cheats!

We are honoring behavior we don’t morally agree with; that’s reprehensible—and it places us in concert with bad actors.

China exerts pressure on us as well! And we listen! We can’t deal with Taiwan as an independent nation! We cannot recognize their democratic republic. Even Tom Cruise had to take the Taiwan flag off his flight jacket in his upcoming Top Gun film! More importantly—the Dalai Lama gets threats from China—as do we—when he speaks at US universities! What did they do to Tibet? What are they doing to Hong Kong? What are they doing to the Uighurs? Genocide!

Russia is bullying Europe and invading Ukraine. They their operatives in broad daylight and poison them in foreign lands. They target the community! They, China—and Vietnam are supporting the #Myanmar
junta.

THESE NATIONS DO NOT BELONG IN THE OLYMPICS—at which Russia and China cheat! Russian sports doping is a regular occurrence!

We tarnish our image by participating with these nations at the Olympics.

Stand up America and show some integrity!

This was sent to the following accounts on Facebook:

President Joe Biden Senator Chuck Schumer Nancy Pelosi Kirsten Gillibrand NBC Olympics CBC Olympics Olympics

Advice for Learning English

Language is a feature of culture. The ways in which a people live form their words and phrases. Therefore, we need to understand a people and their culture to fully understand the nuances of their language. This is why people pay attention to art when learning a language–not just grammar. By art, I mean books and other media–such as TV, radio, plays, talk shows, movies and visual creations. You may think you are paying attention to those things for pronunciation–and maybe you are, but there is much more to it than that-or should be

The thoughts and feelings of a people in a culture–especially English-speaking culture–can be quite complex; just think of the large number of native English-speaking countries. It isn’t a list that comprises only the United States and Great Britain. Canadians are native-speakers of English, of course. You knew that; but that’s just to get me started. Ireland and Scotland are native-English speaking countries. There is also–naturally–Australia, and New Zealand. The Scandinavian countries and Germany utilize English so well–English could be called a first language in those places. All these western countries (not “westernized”) have been speaking English for hundreds of years–some of them closer to a thousand. And the writing system of the English language is Latin–called the Roman Alphabet. So you can see the multiple cultures infused with English–not to mention that England and France have intertwining histories, their countries having ruled and been at war with one another for long stretches in their history. Many English words hail from the Dutch, too, who were the Vikings when they were conquering vast tracts of England–before it became a united kingdom. And English comes heavily from the Celt language and the German one as well.

Practice with Native Speakers
Thankfully, though English has so many cultural inflections and dialects and it stems from many tongues, today, if you speak standard English, basically anyone from most of the English-speaking countries and many of the English-as-a-second-language speaking countries will understand you–though–it may be a little more challenging for you to understand them. So, in the least–practice with and listen to native speakers. These are the people you are practicing to be understood by. Now–if you work with many people from countries where English is a second language but where the English spoken does not sound like native English, you might say you want to be understood by and understand those people, but then you are not shooting for the highest mark, are you?

And though there are many learned and lettered language teachers whose first language is not English, and they are valuable scholars--because they understand the struggle of learning a foreign language, and they may be technically proficient in grammar and style when fluent; and they may speak your native language and the target language of English–so understand your cultural and cognitive challenges, you must choose carefully. Not every bilingual speaker of English is necessarily all that helpful in a comprehensive way; many may exhibit broken English speech patterns–possess a shallow knowledge of colloquialism and idioms and some may be looking at English–still–through the filter of their own native culture. But the most harmful element is the broken speech patterns, which are absorbed by students–especially young ones.

A few years ago–maybe more than ten, actually–I had in my possession a reference, a book written by linguists specializing in English and Korean; I was impressed to find out in this work that what I thought about the importance of studying with a native-speaker teacher was true: that an educated non-native speaker teacher is not as good as a non-educated native-speaker teacher, for helping a student practice English.

The reasons are probably many, but I will name a few from my own thought:

  1. The native speaker learned in infancy, so English is natural to him or her; this cannot be over-estimated. It means that the native-speaker was absorbing and cognitively correlating syntax (word order), cultural inflection (when to say what), pronunciation, enunciation, vocabulary, expressions, idioms and meaning–as well as emotion attached to all of the above–as a survival skill–when his or her brain was interpreting the new world it found itself in–organically. This rooted the native-speaker a sentient being to all experiences spoken about, linguistically. The learning was not abstract. It was an element of its biological experience. This means that the human experience of English for the native speaker who began absorbing English from infancy has the language deeply rooted in its cortex as elements of its conscious state. This is very different from learning a language through another language–the most second-language learners acquire their second language.

    Of course not all native-speakers are good teachers, and some are terrible. And naturally, a teacher with some vast experience and some knowledge of how to teach, as well as expertise in grammar and style, or, the conventions of how we use the language is a great benefit to the student, but the non-native speaker had better speak fluently without non-dialectical inconsistencies if the learner wants to acquire native habits.Hearing bad English makes the student’s English potentially as bad. It is the non-native tutelage coming from non-native -speaking teachers–who likely have impediments created by transliteration issues (trying to write foreign words in a local language ), and those who have not been immersed in a native-speaking target language environment long enough–who bring the bad habits into the classroom or study hall, which causes whole populations to speak with local broken-English patterns of speech; that is why a whole group of people in a country learning English will say the same incorrect things. They are reinforcing one another’s errors–and thus create dialects–such as “Singlish”, “Indlish”, “Japlish”, “Konglish” and “Chinglish”, to name the ones I have heard of, experienced and thought of. A dialect is a version of a language which is different from the standard, which and understood by a community–and often a dialect contains differences one would consider incorrect were they put in written form. The fact that thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people use these “incorrect” versions of a language and understand them–normalizes them, and it is this normalization which makes them ‘dialects.’

    All of this is okay–in a manner of speaking; if people understand and one another despite their non-standard speech, what’s the problem? Well, that’s up to you and your associates, which may include your teachers, employers, coworkers, partners and family.

    Now some will say these versions of language–accepted and not–don’t come from teachers–but rather from poor students; that can be true. but it can–in the English as a Second language world–also not be true. There are local and foreign teachers who sometimes teach the wrong things; this is a case of when education does matter–or proper exposure to standard language. And a college or university degree does not mean one can teach–or that one knows how to teach, or finally, whether one speaks well. I have answered basic grammar questions coming from teachers who have degrees. And–most impressive: all; you have to do is watch the news or politicians and academics in America or England–to name only two countries–to see that very influential people, including scientists, politicians and teachers (certainly actors and ancestresses–even narrators and writers) speak with endemic error–which in may cases is a form of dialect–because so many of them do it.

    To be continued….

    Copyright 2022 Carl Atteniese / All rights reserved

Beyond The Fish Bowl

Listen to an older version of this poem here.








Crossfield ventured across the barrier
Then Shepard rocketed so high
And of Gagarin, and Kamarov before them–
What did they feel?
Not ‘why?’

Truly, there is no Earth membrane
We live on a gas-ensconced globe,
Separated from space by mere thickness
Rotating, revolving and processing
Barrelling in lock and roll

Circling a star–in turn racing…
Round the galaxy’s massive black hole
Itself shot out from the center
Venturing
By expansion thus far

All this violence in balance
Enormous–yet mutually constrained
Their motions playing out like ice skaters
In a gliding dance of refrain

. . .

Armstrong & Aldrin first walked on Earth’s moon
With Cernan & Schmidt, the last two
On the face of that satellite ’til next time
They did what billions dream to

And yet
We’re like fish in a fish bowl
Or children confined to a yard
The fishes unaware of the oceans!
The children of nations afar!

Until a day whence
A few more jump the fence—
Like a fish’s brief rise from the bowl—
To glimpse the extent
Of a small world we rent
To spy but a limited whole
At an old age, now a lonely Earth sage
We see the limits of home
. . .

There are trillions of planets
Round trillions of stars
Yet those nearby
We’ve but seen from afar
In our own system:
Six-hundred-ninety-two worlds
Five dwarf planets
Eight, some of us know
And four-hundred-sixty-two moons!
Places we should go!

Let’s visit far neighbors!
The Jovian skies
With more than mere cameras!
With human naked eyes!

Like children and fishes
Pets chained to rocks
Moonshots
Are ‘feral‘,
Though great
Humans—
Must Go
To the stars!

CA

©︎ Copyright 2021 Carl Atteniese II / All rights reserved ®︎

Aurora


AURORA

Ah, the power of that star
The Queen draw in these foci
In our orbit tight

Reminding us…

(in emeralds
deceptive and so bright
colorfully
alluring

weaving dreams of wonder)

… who is in control

even in a night

Hidden from Her life-
And climate- making chore

Of creating
Atomic
Light




©︎ Copyright 2021 Carl Atteniese II / All rights reserved ®︎

Thanks to Ray Teurfs for an eye toward verbiage.





 Continue reading Aurora	


	
	






	
	

		
Japan’s COVID – 19 Response
	


	

		
QUESTION from COVID-19 Japan (A Facebook Community Page):


‘Honest question: What do you think can convince the government of Japan to take some serious measures to try to keep COVID-19 under control?:’


I have been wondering about this for a long time, myself. : I observe that most people seem to wear masks in Tokyo, but the growing sizable minority that does not has worried me.


1. SOCIAL DISTANCING

We all know that the decrease in social activity in response to the coronavirus in Japan has come in waves, but has never really come to a halt—as in other countries, and when it has slowed significantly, locals and foreigners alike, here, continue to seem to be fearless, standing & sitting close on transport—even near to people unprotected; going out in pairs or in groups where at least one person is unmasked and all remain close, and in not establishing a controlled timing for entrance into places of business, as is done in the US. I attribute this to several possible factors:


2. A LACK of DISCOURSE

Lack of engagement on issues: Generally I don’t think the Japanese talk to each other about controversial issues (this may also benefit their protection–as not talking to strangers during a pandemic has its advantages in slowing the spread of the virus), and they must read about it less, because I see a general ignorance among them in many situations that would appear to betray a lack of the latest information. When they are engaged (I do this with them—feeling a sense of necessity in manhood- and civic duty) they provide little to no resistance or opinion—unless it is easy to agree. So, in general, I don’t see thought or discussion being much of a part of the social fabric—though I would have to imagine it takes place to some degree among confidants. Japanese people tell me themselves–that they lack this or refrain from this activity. Though there are plastic sheets at registers in stores, and later cam plastic dividers between seating t tables in some types of fast-food restaurants–this change was extraordinarily slow to come, as was the donning of PPE by all staff (I’m speaking of activity I have witnessed in the grossly ubiquitous convenience stores; and still, unprotected customers are admitted—to breathe on and touch everything).


3. GOVERNMENT INACTION

The government is apparently not doing its part to inform the public, in a general way—for example in hosting plenaries or hanging signs, displaying posters or mailing flyers about how to take precautions. I confess I don’t watch TV here; are there public service announcements—as there are constantly broadcast in my home state of New York? Private businesses do this, however.


4. POOR ATTITUDE I suspect that due to points 1 and 2 above (and other social and/or historical factors in the national consciousness?) the Japanese people possess an undeserved confidence and even a sort of malaise due to the social challenges the country is famous for and lives with since the initial rise of their economy post-WWII.


I just went a local convenience store and saw multiple people—couples and lone shoppers—out for an early morning walk or to run errands and at least half of the dozen or so individuals I encountered were unmasked. In the store—which is always the case in these tiny and not-so-tiny shops, I encountered unmasked patrons as well. I cannot fathom what is going on in their heads.


5. CONCLUSIONS

I have to conclude that the Japanese–for the most part–are merely going through the motions in relation to COVID19 and are not thinking about this pandemic as seriously as one would expect, in part because:


A. They are in their usual mode of acceptance.


B. The government only stumps on the issue at worst and makes the minor necessary effort at best—because it knows there will be little backlash and as pronounced, it is more concerned about the economy and about being popular (on the part of individual politicians)—which is an easier stance to take given the lack of testing and suppressed case numbers in order to underwhelm hospitals—and it wants to project success–decreasing worry. Look at how they encourage holiday travel.


C. The people possess a mix of hopelessness and over-confidence—the latter possibly bolstered by actual government bragging that they can ‘live with the virus,’ and that their ‘superior culture’ has been a bulwark against it. Of course hither-to low case numbers (however arrived at—perhaps in part due to the Japanese tendency toward discretion and conservative-social-outing-hours—with people tending to head for home around the time the trains begin to stop service—and for the fact that this is not a hugging culture… and that Japan offers superior restroom facilities most everywhere [though the majority of men, at least until now, didn’t seem to wash their hands properly in my experience—after using public restrooms]) has led to a less than ideal public response.


Indeed, on a daily basis—without fail, I find myself very frustrated with the apparent unconscious behavior of an uncomfortably large minority of people I encounter—and this is increasing. People come too close, are often unmasked and exhibit no above-average concern for precautions; I have to initiate every time;


1. Cashiers attempt to touch my hands when they give me my change, touch items to an excess (unless I force them to scan the item’s bar code from a distance).

2. Store clerks and pedestrians are ubiquitously half-masked in many places.

3. Commuters touch every handle and railing when there are other options for one to steady oneself.

4. Commuters and passengers show no concern at unmasked travelers in the immediate vicinity.

5. Commuters stand and move too closely and go up and down stairs and escalators unmasked.


I feel that in general, Japan is not a safe place right now—being perhaps more dangerous than the US in some respects—certainly more so than Korea and less safe than, say, New York, even—because though there is resistance to common sense there (in the States), it is found in pockets of conservative or evangelical communities across the nation—but it’s not a general phenomenon; and the fighting against precautions is a result of thinking (even if wrong-headed)—and where there is thought, minds can be changed; here in Japan, a lack of thinking, communication, and an increase in hopelessness and overconfidence do not provide the kind of environment wherein change happens, in my opinion—especially given the country’s conformist- and shame-oriented culture—unless the government enforces that change, and with an acquiescent, obedient public and a cowardly government, I don’t see that happening.


FINALLY

Some people have suggested Japan is pursuing the herd mentality strategy and others have suggested the low testing rate and disinformation many accuse Japan of are a result of not only economic stability concerns but due to big pharma in Japan using a natural course method as medical research; one student I know of also thinks this has to do with the descendant leadership tied to the infamous World War II era military Unit 731 and their philosophy of dispassionate experimental view of human beings; I find that hard to believe and even harder to want to accept. Either way, the current policy is a nightmare in the making as COVID 19 cases mushroom in number and no leadership is in sight to stem their increase. With the Obon national holiday beginning next weekend, I expect things to get worse.


Carl Atteniese,

Tokyo