Hank Mobley

Was listening to Soul Station this morning, and thought to myself, "The good folks should be listening to this, too!"

So, good folks, here you go:

Differently Abled?

I continue to bump into the intense concern about the language we use. The concern has become obsessive, precious, and self-indulgent. I have written about this before. I posted an essay entitled “Pronouns and Pancakes,” which can be found on my website. The PC/woke movement has maneuvered to spare my delicate disabled feelings as well.

I quite recently had a chat with a student. She reported that in her education classes there is an attempt to scrub the language. The students are not supposed to use “handicapped.” One is not “disabled,” one is a “person with a disability.” I am NOT criticizing the student. I like her very much; I’m just taking issue with the curriculum.

I told her I would be glad to come speak to her class and address these issues. I also told her to pass on to her classmates that her philosophy professor, who is “confined” to a wheelchair, (I’m not supposed to say that; I’m supposed to say I “use” a wheelchair), thinks this policing the language thing is “bullshit.” (I warned the students bad language was coming, and apologized afterward. I do not swear in the classroom; but I made an exception. They found this hilarious.)

The sanitized language is supposed to shield me from suffering. I find this condescending, belittling, and insulting. As if I have nothing better to do than sit around and worry about whether the word “handicapped” is wounding to me. Folks with disabilities have real problems. I have real problems. I’m not telling a sad story, I just have stuff that is galactically more important than whether I am confined to a wheelchair or whether I use one.

I have compression fractures in my spine from falling so many times. Last summer I fell and my head hit the concrete floor in the garage, and off to the ER I went in the back of an ambulance. (Readers of this blog have seen some of the photos.) There are other concerns I will not go into.

I do not presume to speak for disabled folks everywhere. I’m just speaking for myself. But I have met many, many people—stroke victims, accident victims, burn victims, fellow MS peeps—who have real concerns. And I highly doubt—call it a hunch—that they’re worried about the word “handicapped.”

I suspect who is driving this campaign to purge the language are not stroke victims. I am inclined to think it’s people who have the free time, luxury, and privilege to ponder such issues. They probably do not have compression fractures in their spines. They instead sip lattes and walk around their tastefully appointed homes listening to NPR and muttering banalities like “Confined to a wheelchair?? That can be improved!”

I’m not suggesting that our language cannot be tightened up a bit, and that we shouldn’t give some thought to the effect words have on people. Yes, we should probably count to ten and think through the language we use. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a culture that has lost its sense of proportion. It is so concerned about whether we use “homeless” or “unhoused” that we have forgotten about the homeless and why they are living in cars and tents.

At an institution where I teach, I was wheeling myself from the parking lot to the science building. There is a slight upward grade when you approach the building. Even a slight grade can be hard for folks in wheelchairs. So, I was struggling a bit, and a biology professor (I know who she is) walks by me and says “That looks unpleasant.” Giving me the finger would have been much simpler. I am confident that this professor uses all the right words. She probably uses ”differently abled” in her daily speech. Differently abled. Now that is insulting. Kinda like someone saying “That looks unpleasant” and not offering any help.

Keep your disinfected language. It’s condescending. I’ll take a push instead. And please vote for a president who is going to fight for universal healthcare. If you don’t, then you have a middle finger in my face, too.

US Entry into Vietnam (repost)

It was eighty years ago today that Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent country. As he did so, he quoted Thomas Jefferson, and a Vietnamese band played the “Star-Spangled Banner.” Vietnam was attempting to free itself from French domination.

Ho, the leader of Vietnamese nationalism, thought perhaps the United States would be an ally in this endeavor. He would make repeated attempts to appeal to US presidents, but he would quickly discover that Uncle Sam was not a partner in anything. The colonized, the thinking went, were lazy, stupid, juvenile, and dishonest—and likely to become communist; they were simply not ready for democracy. It was a self-evident truth that non-White people were too backward for such things. Not that Uncle Sam looked favorably on small, agrarian countries steering their own paths, mind you. This represented a threat. Maybe they would become Soviet pawns; maybe other countries would get similar funny ideas.

Vietnam would eventually be subjected to just how seriously the United States took what was called “the domino theory.” When the Vietnam War was over, 2-3 million Vietnamese were dead. Americans have gotten their history from Hollywood. They do not understand this conflict—at all. My goal in this essay (I wrote it in 2017) was to explain why the war happened. I thought I would repost it on this sorrowful anniversary.

As I have pointed out before:

• 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

• The issue was South Vietnam

• We were not fighting communism

• The Viet Cong were not the bad guys

• Jane Fonda is tiresome, not a “traitor”

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

• We did not “lose” the war; the goal was punishment

That last point might raise some eyebrows. If we say a baseball team “lost” a game, we know what happened. We know what the goals were, and how the team did not meet those goals. If we say the United States “lost” in Vietnam, we necessarily have to distort the history in order to fit that language.

The Truman and Eisenhower administrations talked about France winning in Vietnam, but again, what did “win” mean? The French were there as imperialists; they were there to control the country and conduct an extractive economy. Win meant subjugate. It meant brutalize.

Uncle Sam stepped in because it was felt the French lacked the necessary “will” to achieve the task. Uncle Sam just got a bigger hammer—and did not lack the will to use it. We didn’t win or lose—that language makes no sense—we destroyed a country and killed 2-3 million people. The message got sent.

. . .

Read time: 8:00

https://www.gregoryharms.com/essays-20171002

Episode 16

In this episode Mick Jagger makes an appearance, as does Fiona from Shrek. And I discuss metaphysics—as well as take science to task.

More “Socialism” than Socialism (repost)

I self-published this essay almost seven years to the day. I think it still stands up. The topic of socialism doesn’t seem to go away. And I mean that in the critical way. Many Americans have been successfully indoctrinated—that is what it is—with the thinking that capitalism = good, socialism = bad. They do not know what either of those are, but the gavel has dropped. They just know it. Never mind the fact that the United States doesn’t really have capitalism; I for one think it would be a step in the right direction. And Soviet Russia had as much to do with socialism as it did country-Western music.

Would poverty alleviation, universal healthcare, and universal basic income be so bad? And we could have those things and still remain “capitalist”—which we’re not.

.  .  .

Almost exactly a year ago (Sep. 4, 2017), I posted a link to an article on socialism, including a few comments on the subject. The gist of my remarks was that, while I am optimistic about the relative open-mindedness of Millennials — namely, their willingness to even question concepts like capitalism — I am hesitant with the term socialism.

A study at Harvard University a couple years ago revealed that a thin majority of young adults (18-29 years old) do not support capitalism, while only 42 percent support it. Yet, only 33 percent support socialism. The takeaway here is that, at minimum, young adults are open to questioning the matter.

They might be unclear as to the precise meaning of those terms, but for Millennials and others, "capitalism" mainly translates as the kind of malfeasance and greed that brought down the world economy in 2008. That, as far as young adults are concerned, is sufficient reason to be suspicious.

Millennials tend not to view capitalism with the quasi-religious reverence of their parents (my generation, Generation X) and their grandparents. The latter cohort, labeled Baby Boomers, was raised on a rich diet of Cold War rhetoric and television programming that reinforced the precept that capitalist America wore the white hat, and communist Russia donned the black. Reality was irrelevant. History was irrelevant. The meaning of those words was irrelevant.

This invites a deeper analysis of why and how the Baby Boomers have made a poor showing, in many instances driving the country backwards over the last 40 years. (For the basics of what I am saying here, see Jim Tankersley’s piece in the Washington Post, Nov. 5, 2015.) My immediate concern is how they hear the word socialism.

Regardless of that generation's (and my generation's) confusion on the matter — that socialism equates to Sovietism, which it doesn't — the fact is that, when they hear the word, what is evoked are the hammer and sickle. And this will not change anytime soon, if ever. It is for this reason that I have misgivings over the word's usage.

Given the state of things — economic instability, income inequality, wage stagnation — it is unsurprising that a growing resistance is taking place. And as with any resistance, a new vocabulary emerges. Especially with Bernie Sanders's open use of the term socialism during his 2016 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, the word has reentered American politics. Adding to the phenomenon was of course last June's Democratic primary victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Her defeating the longtime incumbent in New York's 14th congressional district was only part of the upset; the other part was that Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Moreover, with her now being a high-wattage presence on the national stage, you will be hearing the word socialism more frequently.

My stated misgivings are my own, and I present them here merely to frame the subject. I have no illusions and am not attempting to police or alter the language; I know well that socialism is now part of the discourse. That said, a few things should be kept in mind as we near the midterms and 2020.

Last week on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Bernie Sanders stated the following: "I think the real issue is that the ideas that we've been talking about, almost without exception, are now ideas that are mainstream ideas and are supported by the vast majority of the American people." What he says here is correct. Policy initiatives like Medicare-for-all, raising the minimum wage, and free public college are in fact mainstream and enjoy majority support.

Yet, while they can maybe be labeled progressive, especially given the status quo, they are not necessarily socialist. As some have correctly pointed out, these are policy ideas that are in keeping with the New Deal, along with the more or less liberal administrations spanning the 1950s through to the 1970s.

Had the Democrats maintained and built on the notion of functioning as a true labor party, instead of marching rightward — to the point of effectively becoming the new Republican Party — these kinds of policies might very well today be their stock in trade. In other words, had they held their line and maintained a liberal/progressive orientation, the Democrats would now be, in essence, a party operating according to the same "social democratic" principles on display in Scandinavia.

The distinction here is worth noting. "Democratic socialists," like Ocasio-Cortez, take a more traditional socialist position. According to the DSA's website, "As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people."

Democratic socialism's core philosophy is therefore a kind of radical democracy, with an eye toward post-capitalism and eventual worker ownership and control of companies. Reform now, true socialism later.

Social democracy — as opposed to democratic socialism — does not advocate the overthrow of capitalism, but instead seeks to create the best possible circumstances within the capitalist model. Concepts such as basic income and universal healthcare are easily compatible with a corporatist structure. The socioeconomics of countries like Sweden and Denmark are examples of social democracies; they have promoted reform and progress in their countries, yet retain market economies, and without seeking their dismantling.

The majority of Americans support Sanders's and Ocasio-Cortez's positions (for more detail, see my 2016 article, "The Nation is Not Divided," on Counterpunch), that is, they desire a more social democratic arrangement — though are unaware of the fact. However, the majority of Americans are not in favor of revolution or overthrowing corporate capitalism. What they want is reform of the present system, which is exactly what is being proposed. What Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez (despite her DSA affiliation) are talking about is social democracy.

I feel it is important to keep these distinctions in mind, to stay focused on what the majority wants, and to not get lost in rhetoric and theory. The emphasis should be on improvement of present policy. Unfortunately, news coverage will be an obstacle. Without fail, the major news outlets are working to distract the public. While commentators and politicians to the right are always keen to use the word "socialist" as a scare tactic, the centrist-liberal media are also at work.

The New York Times has never been Bernie friendly, as it prides itself on standing guard over the left boundary of respectable liberal opinion. With the increased talk of socialism, naturally, one is seeing op-ed pieces such as Michael Tomasky's on August 5, in which he shared his "mixed feelings about this socialism boomlet" and "All these socialists coming out of the woodwork."

For the Times, anything to the left of Hillary Clinton and the new Republicans is treated with condescension; it goes without saying, in light of public opinion polls, this condescension extends to the majority of Americans.

At both Fox News and the more centrist news organizations, the disparaging commentary will continue, despite the enormous benefits that their audiences and readerships stand to enjoy from such policies. In the present atmosphere in journalism, the priorities are brand protection and ideological alignment. By playing to their audiences, their audiences are getting played.

The word socialism is out there. And many will envision statues of Lenin when they hear it. The reality is that the reforms being discussed by Sanders and others are quite feasible and supported by the majority. People might not agree on what should become of corporate capitalism; but democracy is a good place to start the conversation.

Ten Recommended

I hadn’t updated my Ten Recommended lists for an age. So, I decided to spruce them up. The first lists are basically the same, but I made a lot of additions and subtractions to the Series list.

These lists started as a list of movies I recommended to students. They kept asking for such a list and grew hostile with my lack cooperation, but I finally delivered. Then I added a couple more lists. And it grew into what it is today.

These are just things I recommend; the lists aren’t what I think are the "ten best" or anything like that.

Happy exploring.

https://komputilo.com/ten/ten_recommended.pdf

Seafood City

If you're not familiar, Seafood City is a Filipino wonderland on Chicago’s north side . We went yesterday because I wanted to try balut. Balut is a fetal duck egg. It's basically a partially developed baby duck you eat out of the shell. Sadly, they did not have any yesterday.

So, we went to Jollibee instead. Jollibee is a Filipino fast food joint that is equal parts wonderful and odd. You just have to go to experience it. I love the spaghetti with hotdogs that comes in a box. So good—in a weird way.

Then we hit a couple bakeries. When you first go to a Filipino bakery you initially notice that many things on offer are purple. That is because these items are made with ube, which is a purple tuber that yields purple flour.

The seafood department is incredible. One photo features Cece showing the viewer the size of the fish by holding her hand next to it.

Next time, balut.

5033 N Elston Ave, Chicago, IL 60630