Seven Dirty Words -- In Retrospect Not So Restrictive

George Carlin (Reuters photo)

This week marks the 50th anniversary of George Carlin's “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television," which your humble blogger won't delineate here but can be quickly found with an Internet search.

Knowing the culture of 1972, one can easily guess at a dozen that could be on the list---George Carlin's seven will be a subset--and all refer to sex or excretory functions whose utterance horrified polite society. You still shouldn't say any of them in church, but they are increasingly used in musical lyrics and entertainment.

The bluenose old ladies who once dictated the rules of language have been supplanted by the latter-day Red Guards pouring out of our colleges to police what can't be said (e.g., "all lives matter") and what one must say (e.g., "black lives matter") to avoid shunning.

Maybe Carlin’s gift to the world wasn’t identifying the hypocrisy of having words you can’t say on TV but pointing out that shutting down words or ideas or thoughts is destructive to a free society. He’d probably be aghast at the state of social-media censorship today. If the price of our freedom is that someone may take offense, Carlin surely would think that’s worth the cost. I’d agree.

Thanks to censorship and technology, the public airwaves have been greatly diminished. Car radio moved to SiriusXM and Spotify. Television moved to cable and satellite and Blu-ray. Now it is all streaming and anything goes. I still think youth need to be protected, but good luck with that. Eight-year-olds with smartphones can hear the forbidden words daily. I laugh at Netflix’s kid-magnet warnings: “Gore, Language, Smoking.” Even Disney isn’t as family-friendly as it used to be.

Carlin died in 2008, as cancel culture and campus safe spaces for the anxious were beginning to become widespread. Today, there is a long list of things you can’t say, including “all lives matter” and “chief” and “birth mother” and even “master bedroom.” Goodbye discussion and thought. Then add sports-team names and wrong pronouns on playgrounds and shoot, we miss you, George Carlin.

After seeing how the new Puritanism works, a world where George Carlin can't say seven dirty words doesn't seem as restrictive.

No Fooling

Today's Star Advertiser headline, no fooling:

Report calls for ‘better, honest’ government [bold added]

A recently formed commission is recommending passage of 14 bills at the Legislature largely aimed at combating public corruption, improving government transparency and changing fundraising and campaign spending rules.

The Commission to Increase Standards of Conduct, formed by the House of Representatives on Feb. 17, a week after bribery indictments were brought against two former Hawaii lawmakers, released a preliminary report Thursday focused on legislative reform that can be implemented this year.

It's easy to ridicule the banality of the headline, but motherhood (a condition of birthing people) and apple pie (too much sugar) are no longer universally praiseworthy.

So, why not "better" and "honest"? As the wealth, influence, and power of government have grown, those qualities are more elusive than ever.

Make America Virtuous Again?

At one point in high school someone told me that character is destiny, which at the time seemed profound. (The quote is attributed to Heraclitus, who is also famous for "you can't step into the same river twice," but I digress.)

After a few years under their belt, most people come to realize that being of good character does not guarantee secular success. Bad things happen to good people, and bad people can be found at the pinnacle of government, business, entertainment, sports, law, media, and even churches and other non-profits. However, the importance of good character still persisted in a society that believed in an after-life when Final Judgment would be rendered.

When fewer people believe in a Deity, and fewer are members of an organized religion, does virtue have relevance, especially since virtue may be the only reward?

Answering in the affirmative, Harvard history professor James Hankins sees similarities in today's predicaments to 14th century Italy, when the philosopher-poet Petrarch saw virtue as the solution:

it was precisely the collapse of institutions and the twin diseases of violent partisanship and tyranny that drove the great political thinkers of the Renaissance to invent a new instrument of statecraft. They called it the studia humanitatis, or the humanities...

Italy was recovering from the Black Death and the collapse of its financial system. The Catholic Church was divided and corrupt, the Holy Roman Empire was fatally weakened and the Ottoman Turks were knocking at the door of Constantinople...These leaders were ignorant of the past, unable to express themselves truthfully or decently, and driven by their unbridled lust for power and riches to neglect the common good. Feared and hated by their subjects, they were unable to inspire loyalty.

Petrarch’s solution was a new kind of politics: virtue politics...Following Plato, the humanists defined tyranny as the absence of good character, so the ruler who lacked good character could by definition be considered a tyrant. Those who possessed political power by hereditary right didn’t deserve that power unless they were also virtuous—that is, unless they possessed moral excellence and practical wisdom. Virtue was made a necessary condition of legitimate rule, and virtue could be taught and learned—through an education in the humanities.

Your humble blogger buys into much of what Professor Hankins advocates, that widespread education in the humanities is a societal good. However, with regard to the humanities I am referring to the canon as it was 50 years ago, not that which prevails today with restrictions on speech and thought, promulgation of "social justice" through an expansion of State power, and tribal politics that sees everyone through the prism of group identity.

But...teaching men to be virtuous will not make them so. One of the major premises of American constitutional government is that individuals cannot be trusted with too much power, hence the system of checks and balances. That system, while infuriatingly slow at times, has proved to be remarkably stable regardless of the character of those who inhabit political office.

Also, virtue isn't everything. One of the least successful Presidents of the 20th century--but arguably the most virtuous--was Jimmy Carter.

Success in the sacred does not make one successful in the profane. We can support Donald Trump or Bill Clinton for their effectiveness, not their saintliness.

While we wish that our leaders would be both, they are rarely so.

The 24/7 Outrage Machine

(WSJ graphic)

WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan is always a worthwhile read--not because I agree with her, which I often don't--but because I think she has a moral sensibility akin to mine. She's slow to condemn moral failings and tries to see the perspectives from all sides.

In her first column of 2020 she's very critical of President Trump ("He can’t be proved more guilty") while at the same time dismissive of the attempt to remove him ("It will be the impeachment that didn’t move the needle, that history barely remembers").

She also is not complimentary toward the Democratic Presidential field or Nancy Pelosi. But she saves her harshest words for the wokescolds: [bold added]

The past decade saw the rise of the woke progressives who dictate what words can be said and ideas held, thus poisoning and paralyzing American humor, drama, entertainment, culture and journalism. In the coming 10 years someone will effectively stand up to them. They are the most hated people in America, and their entire program is accusation: you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic; you are a bigot, a villain, a white male, a patriarchal misogynist, your day is over. They never have a second move. Bow to them, as most do, and they’ll accuse you even more of newly imagined sins. They claim to be vulnerable victims, and moral. Actually they’re not. They’re mean and seek to kill, and like all bullies are cowards.

Everyone with an honest mind hates them. Someone will finally move effectively against them. Who? How? That will be a story of the ’20s, and a good one.

It's hard to de-escalate, though, with so many likes.

Tolerance is an ethic that is an important part of being an adult. As more Americans live in denser communities tolerance has become even more crucial. There are ways to express disagreement without being disagreeable.

The 24/7 outrage machine has made life unpleasant for all. When tolerant people like Peggy Noonan have had enough, then the reckoning is coming.

The Modern Conceit

George Mason Law Professor Ilya Somin questions the inevitability of moral progress: [bold added]

all of the experts assumed that the tide of history will move in favor of the views they themselves advocate. They all seem to expect moral progress, and do not consider the possibility of retrogression. The idea that history inevitably moves towards moral progress - or at least is highly likely to do so - is a highly influential one. Many like to cite Martin Luther King's famous statement that "[t]he arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Sadly, however, moral progress is far from inevitable. Retrogression has happened before, and could easily do so again. [snip]

It isn't hard to find examples of horrific moral retrogression in history....the 19th century abolition of slavery and serfdom throughout most of the world - one of the greatest examples of moral progress in human history - was followed in the 20th century by communist and fascist regimes' massive use of slave labor on a hitherto unimaginable scale. Communists and Nazis developed new ideological justifications for an old evil, and technological advances enabled them to implement their horrific visions far more extensively than was possible in previous eras. During the same time period, even comparatively enlightened liberal democratic states also resorted to forced labor on a larger scale than before, through extensive use of mass conscription for both civilian and military "national service," an idea that has most of the same moral flaws as old-style slavery and serfdom.

Professor Somin is cautioning that mankind's imperfections increase the harm that can result from new technology. He is stating, essentially, the Christian position--that the sins of greed, lust, sloth, pride, envy, anger, and gluttony have not been banished by scientific advancement. Those who subscribe to the Hegelian dialectic, Marxists especially, believe that over the long term the march of morality is positive. There are enough examples from history to support either side of the argument.

What is clear is that, without constant vigilance and a significant number of people who are willing to sublimate their selfish desires, "retrogression" can occur, probably faster and farther than any of us foresee.

Collapsing Like a House of Cards

I knew something was true but couldn't prove it.

I knew that the sexual depredations of various Christian leaders--Catholic priests, television evangelists, and conservative religious politicians--trumpeted almost gleefully by the media, could not have been the whole story. Every practicing Christian I encounter knows that he is a sinner, but regularly repents and tries to do better next time. How come the only abusers and harassers of women and children were Christians and/or conservatives? How come Hollywood, the media, and academia, rife with people who are not religious and often proudly so, were so free of sin?

Now we know that they were not, their actions have been more numerous and severe, and their deeds have been actively covered up for at least the 20 years dating back to the Clinton Administration. The whole edifice is collapsing like a House of Cards.

Much more important than the current
discussion, the congregation blessed Jared
and Alexandra, who grew up in our church,
on their wedding earlier this week.

Dear Lord, please forgive me for any feelings of satisfaction or vindication that I feel. If I were more secular, I would crow about justice being served (is this the "social justice" that I keep hearing about?), but that would be wrong.

Let's all start by taking a break from deploring the repugnant cultural other.

There are numerous reflections on this topic. Here are a few:

Ross Douthat, What if Ken Starr Was Right?

Andrew Sullivan, The Danger of Knowing You're on the Right Side of History

David Brooks, The Siege Mentality Problem

Respite from Their Harangues

Admonitions against self-righteousness ("pot calling the kettle black", "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones") go back centuries or longer:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? [Matthew 7:3]

The first European colonists brought strict moral codes to the New World, and the Puritan tradition held sway for hundreds of years.

Burt Lancaster won Best Actor in 1961 for
his portrayal of a con-man evangelist.

The philosophical revolt began in literature, then continued in film. Morally compromised clergy became so commonplace in fiction that nowadays it is unusual to read the story of a man of the cloth who is not consumed by lust, avarice, and/or ambition. Real-world revelations of child abuse, adultery, and financial chicanery contributed to the erosion of Christianity's moral authority.

By the end of the 20th century the status of Christianity was so undermined that few clergy had the temerity to pontificate upon the evils of society, preferring to minister to the needs of their congregation and focus on individuals' spiritual health. (To be sure, some issues like late-term abortion did rouse conservative Christians from their torpor, but those occasions were rare.)

There was a strain of Christianity--endemic in my Episcopal Church--that embraced progressivism (Marxism rechristened) and gave full-throated advocacy to identity politics, the denunciation of "structural" racism/sexism/economic inequality, and the use of State power to rectify perceived injustice.

Academia, Hollywood, and mass media merged with progressive Christianity to create a new priestly caste, the educated philosopher-kings who marched on the right side of history. After Donald Trump was elected in November, the outrage from these morally superior beings has been broadcast unceasingly over all TV, radio, print, and internet channels.

Until last Sunday, that is, when the deeds of Harvey Weinstein came to light. He was one of their spiritual ringleaders, and his crimes--moral and social, if not legal---were far more severe and extensive than any Donald Trump might have committed.

The priestly caste will not be shaken from their worldview by the actions of one, two, or ten Harvey Weinsteins, but here's hoping that for a little while we will be granted respite from their harangues.

No, It Doesn't Make You Look Fat

Of course, if you had to pick truth vs lies, we know
which one is better (National Autism Resources)

People with autism-spectrum disorder (ASD) [bold added]

indeed have a hard time being untruthful.

This is caused, [Duke professor Murali Doraiswamy) added, by the trouble they have with what specialists in the field call “theory of mind”—that is, the basic ability to put ourselves in somebody else’s shoes and empathize with their perspective. Most of us are able to ask ourselves, “How would that person feel if I told them that their haircut is unflattering or that they smell?” Many young people with Asperger’s don’t tend to think this way, so they often don’t develop the habit of telling white lies for reasons of politeness. They don’t learn to dial down unnecessarily hurtful truths to spare another person’s feelings.

We know a number of ASD children and adults, and they do find it difficult to lie. (The more socially adept change the subject or keep silent.) However, it's been our experience that it's not their excessive truthfulness that gets them into trouble but their physical reactions---not necessarily violent---in social situations.

It's no wonder that ASD kids 1) Like computers, video games, and other screen-based media, yet 2) Stay away from social forms of the technology.

Some of Our Best Friends....

Economist graph compiled from Gallup data.

Three reasons why same-sex marriage is rapidly gaining recognition throughout the United States[bold added]:

One reason is demographic replacement: the deaths of anti-gay traditionalists and the emergence of a generation that grew up accepting homosexuality as a normal human variation. Their nonchalance is founded upon broadening acceptance of the proposition that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is generally innate and not inherently harmful. Yet a third reason, underlying both of the others, is that sexual minorities have emerged from the shadows into full public view.

Familiarity sometimes breeds acceptance, not contempt.

Joe Paterno, R.I.P.

When one-of-a-kind leaders are debilitated by disease or age, it's often said that "we'd rather have 10% of X than 100% of anybody else." Organizations accommodate the long journey into night by delegating many of the leader's routine responsibilities and husbanding his flagging energy for the tasks that make him unique. We've seen this gradual, sad transition occur in organizations as disparate as Apple Computer, the Roman Catholic Church, and Penn State University.

We can see why Penn State left Joe Paterno at the helm of its football program. The Paterno name conferred a broad range of benefits--competing for desirable recruits, higher alumni donations, and more publicity, to name but a few. Evil entered into these happy arrangements, and tragedy resulted.

Child sexual abuse is a horrible crime that destroys lives. You or I, dear reader, would surely have done more than pass along the allegations about one of our subordinates to university officials. But if I were an 80-year-old executive, I'd need a great deal of proof before I blew up an organization that appeared to be running smoothly. (It also may be that Joe Paterno, like many in his generation, did not appreciate the heinousness or prevalence of child sexual abuse.)

The scandal ruined the lives of the young victims, but it also ruined the life of a good and decent man who could not see the evil rising in his midst. R.I.P.

Righting the Ship

As the old year recedes, I hope that the politics of envy goes with it. Most Americans agree, according to Michael Barone:

Consider one conundrum in American politics. Income inequality has been increasing, according to standard statistics. Yet most Americans do not seem very perturbed by it [snip]

It's a widespread assumption in some affluent circles that ordinary Americans are seething with envy because they can't afford to shop regularly at Neiman Marcus or Saks Fifth Avenue. My sense is that most Americans just don't care. They're reasonably happy with what they've got, and would like a little more.

Several thoughts:

1) The rich people—doctors, real estate investors, lawyers, CEO’s—whom we know by and large continue to work very hard even after they have purportedly “made it.” We’ve come across a few goof-offs, but even in those cases they earned their life of leisure by building successful businesses and selling them.

2) Rich people have sorrows, too. Money can alleviate but not eliminate cancer, family strife, and substance abuse.

3) The unemployment rate of about 10% means that 90% of the people who desire work are employed. And most of the working aspire to be rich, too. They want to amass wealth and preserve a system that will secure, not redistribute it.

4) Leftists call receipts from capital “exploitation,” or at best “unearned.” This view is the opposite of the experience of most Americans, who accumulate property and capital through savings; deferred gratification is not vice, but virtue, as are the fruits of capital in the form of dividends and interest.

5) Americans do resent payments for “services” when there’s non-performance. Real estate appraisers who don’t appraise, sanitation workers who won’t clear the roads, or tenured professors who don’t teach are now the subject of opprobrium.

It may well be that in 2010 we saw not only the balancing of the political scales, but the righting of cultural norms as well. © 2011 Stephen Yuen

The Right and Painful Thing

It’s a widely held belief that the people who were bilked by Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme lost everything. Thanks to the widow of an early Madoff investor, a sizeable chunk of the lost $20 billion will be returned to the victims.

The estate of Jeffry Picower, a major investor in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme, has agreed to repay $7.2 billion to victims of the fraud in a settlement with the trustee overseeing the investment firm's bankruptcy and federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the situation.

With such a large sum at stake, Mrs. Barbara Picower could have stalled this case for a long time. Given the fungibility of money and the length of their association with Bernard Madoff, an attempt to trace what part of the Picower estate was the fruit of the poisoned tree would have taken years. However, she quickly agreed to restitution.

"The trustee as a result of today's settlement will be in a position to make a distribution of approximately 50% of the estimated allowed claims in the liquidation proceeding," said David Sheehan, Mr. Picard's counsel. "Mrs. Picower is to be commended for coming forward and returning every cent she received from [Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities] to the trustee and the U.S. attorney."

The 2009 Forbes 400 list pulls a number out of the air--$1 billion—as the estimate of the late Jeffry Picower’s wealth. It was obviously well below the actual number. Nevertheless, $7.2 billion had to represent the bulk of the Picower estate.

It’s convenient to say that when we become rich we will do the right thing, but somehow many people never do. Wealthy people’s lifestyles, social standing, and identities become tied up with their net worth. Signing away 70-90% of that net worth likely was difficult for Mrs. Picower, but it renews our hope in humanity to witness someone rich and powerful doing the right and painful thing. © 2010 Stephen Yuen