Detectorists

A friend recommended this British comedy series. I found it endearing and charming. It's about two metal detector hobbyists, Lance and Andy (played by Toby Jones and Mackenzie Crook),—they're called detectorists!—who are best friends. The series is calm, rather funny, and humane. It's really unlike any series I've seen.

There are also two rival detectorists—Lance and Andy's arch enemies, really—who happen to look like Simon and Garfunkle. When the four exchange words, which occurs frequently, one of our detectorists invariably cites a line from a Simon and Garfunkle song. Lance and Andy then always fist bump. I love this.

If you're looking for calm and charming and light, this is the series for you.

https://tubitv.com/series/300006335/detectorists

The Arrogance of Ignorance

Note: This is kind of a footnote I am putting at the beginning of my essay. It simply runs through the generations’ dates.

• Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964)

• Generation X (1965–1980)

• Millennials (1981–1996)

• Generation Z (1997–2012)

• Generation Alpha (2013–2025?)


Okay, this essay was inspired by Gen Z. My students know that I am not casually critical of their generation. I am not one of these self-congratulatory, self-indulgent, blowhard Gen Xers (or Boomers) who pat themselves on the back for riding their bikes without helmets when they were children. Wow, what an inspiration you are.

The Boomers also love to punch down at the Millennials and Gen Z for being fragile and wimpy; this is because the Boomers are—like my generation—impressed with themselves for being rugged and resilient.

Point of order: What two generations have brought the country to a low point? Why do we not have universal healthcare? Why is there a sociopathic circus clown in the White House? Why is the infrastructure falling down around our ears? Why is Wall Street signing us up for another 2008? Gen X and the Boomers, in all their rugged resilience, are responsible for the worst political cowardice and compliance maybe this country has ever seen.

So, to reiterate, I do not casually criticize Gen Z. I do in fact have a lot of experience with them. I spend five days a week in their company and have for years. I am familiar with their culture. And that said, I have noticed something that I cannot unsee.

Now, this behavior is not peculiar to Gen Z. It can be found in all generations. It’s prevalent in my generation, the Boomers seem to traffic in it, and the Millennials are not innocent of it.

Maybe it’s an American phenomenon; I’ll have to think on that a bit more. For now, I’m going to proceed like it is indeed an American phenomenon.

But like I said, it clicked first while observing Gen Z. I noticed that there lies a deep (and eerily quiet) arrogance in their culture. How did I arrive at this conclusion? Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: There exists among Gen Z culture (and others) the thinking that “If I don’t know it, it’s not important.”

Premise 2: The contrapositive of that conditional statement is “If it’s important, then I know it.” Contraposition is valid. (The contrapositive of a conditional statement is going from If P then Q, to If not Q then not P—valid.)

We proceed:

Premise 3: A person who knows all important things is intellectually complete.

Premise 4: Anyone who is intellectually complete is perfect.

Conclusion: The person who holds this view operates from the assumption that they are perfect.

And there it is. The ignorance that prevails in the culture (American culture) betrays an almost pathological arrogance. I know people who are 18 who think this way; I know people who are 78 who think this way.

But I am most concerned about Gen Z. I like them. I want more and better for them. I am honest with them. I share analytical observations with them—critical ones—that they don’t necessarily want to hear. But what kind of intellectual would I be if I did not tell people what they don’t want to hear?

I don’t want to see Gen Z make this terrible mistake. I don’t want to see them act like Boomers. The way to go through life—if one wishes for a richer life—is to live with a sense of curiosity and wonder. One must live one’s life open to new information, new ways of thinking, and new experiences. For all their very good qualities, I just don’t see this in Gen Z. And it scares me.

Episode 17

Well, we finally got copyright scolded by YouTube. Not badly, just a note. At 5:36 in the episode, we had Jimi Hendrix's "Star-Spangled Banner" accompanying the text, which was originally posted up by some jamoke. So, I though we could use the audio at least. I was wrong. I then opted for YouTube to delete the audio, and they did a poor job. We therefore did a new version, where the text beginning at 5:36 is now accompanied by silence. I think this might be even better than the Hendrix. 

We lost our viewer count—39!—but at least now we're fully compliant.

Thought you should know.

Episode 17: Vietnam

• We did not go there as referees

• We did not get “sucked in”

• We did not go there with good intentions

• We were not defending ourselves

• Vietnam did not invade or attack the United States

• The issue was not North Vietnam

• The issue was punishing South Vietnam

• We were not fighting communism

• Ho Chi Minh was not a communist

• The Viet Cong were defending their country

• Jane Fonda is tiresome, not a “traitor”

• The movies are, by subtraction, distortions—all of them

• The United States lost 58,000 service personnel

• Vietnam lost 2–3 million people

Harms Army

It's official.

Well, both those words are inaccurate There is no actual entity called the "Harms Army." And therefore "it" could not be official. However, we won't let that stop us. Take that, reality!

Eye for an Eye

I have heard it many, many times. But lately for some reason I have been bumping into it with what seems an increased frequency. What has remained constant over the many years is the self-adulation with which this maxim is presented: “It says so in the Bible!”

This precept is called the Code of Hammurabi—in Latin, lex talionis. It is a principle of retributive punishment. The general and original meaning was to prevent excessive punishment. The penalty, the theory went, was to be equivalent to the harm caused.

Many people love to trot this out in an effort to sound sophisticated and deep. I guess quoting the Bible indicates one’s panache and worldliness. It indicates neither in this case.

One finds lex talionis in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21 of the Old Testament. These three books of the Bible fall in what is called the Pentateuch. This is the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Pentateuch is also known as the Torah. The Torah is a key element in Jewish rabbinical literature.

Now, one might ask our self-satisfied presenter if he or she is Jewish, on account of limiting him or herself to the Pentateuch. Yet, we should bear in mind that Jewish scripture is not in agreement with lex talionis. The Jewish faith reduces it to a monetary concept, where the injured party is remunerated equivalently for the damage done. The Jewish faith does not endorse retributive justice.

For that matter, Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) outright contradicts the Code of Hammurabi. He instead encourages his followers to love their enemies and proceed in life with compassion and forgiveness.

And in case the one who enthusiastically quotes scripture—and who has no apparent understanding of it—wanted to pivot and turn to Islam: they’re not entirely on board with it either. Now, the principle of “a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose” does appear in the Quran (5:45).

However, this passage should be understood in the context in which it was written. The point here is that the maxim removes social status from consideration of punishment, which it had hitherto been. Furthermore, the Quran emphasizes charity and “expiation” (atonement). Mercy and forgiveness are the priorities in Islam—not chopping people’s heads off.

So, our proud Biblical scholar is triangulated by the three major monotheistic faiths in how they do not entirely concur with the “eye for an eye” dictum.

My guess is the person is hinting they are in support of capital punishment. I taught capital punishment for years, now I teach the prison system as a whole. And I learned an interesting thing along the way: there are zero (zero) valid arguments for the death penalty. They all amount to blood lust and revenge. All the common assertions one hears regarding the death penalty are wrong: it’s cheaper, it discourages crime, it makes society safer, it’s justice—all nonsense.

So, the next time you hear someone pompously aver “an eye for an eye,” begin asking basic questions. And then listen to the crickets.

Bulletin: Frequency