Is this not the ultimate irony? A madman starts shooting at Republicans playing softball and who are the heroes that charge the gunman and engage in a firefight to save them? Two black Capitol police officers- David Bailey, an immigrant man from Brazil and Crystal Griner,  a lesbian who's married to another woman. No one denies that their behavior was absolutely heroic in nature, especially the GOP senators and representatives who were saved from being shot. There is no doubt that they will receive Congressional commendations for their actions and that a full joint session of Congress will give them a well deserved standing ovation. Then we can watch to see how those Republicans vote on issues most concerning to blacks, gays and immigrants.

(This is in response to an email from a friend who blames bad parenting for all the mass shootings in recent years.)

 I'm sure that bad parenting is the root cause for some of the shootings, but I think the guy who shot Steve Scalise is older than us and he seems to have led a somewhat normal life until now. It's kind of hard to blame his parents. Some people are just crazy; some people are plain evil, some people have bad events that change their personality; some people are influenced by bad people other than their parents; some people have mental illness that suddenly appears. There are lots of reasons why people commit acts of terror. Frustration about sex, religion and/or politics also leads people to commit desperate acts.
 Also, a lot of people in this country have an abnormal fondness for guns and consider the idea of using them as a reasonable approach to solving their problems. American culture glorifies their use. How often do people get shot in movies, TV shows, and video games? It is presented to us as an acceptable thing. A few things for certain: gun violence in America is out of control; easy access to guns is definitely a problem; the American attitude toward gun use is culturally influenced. We'll never make progress in any way without collecting data about these things. The fact that our government prohibits the pursuit of knowledge about these subjects makes us look like a country of idiots.

   When we complain about another person's behavior, we are referring to that person's inability to conduct themselves in a reasonably civil manner. We are actually saying that that person doesn't discipline themselves properly, or better yet, they just don't govern themselves well. I believe that this type of self-government is what the founders of our country had in mind when they originally tried to establish a system of law for America. They envisioned an ideal society comprised of self-governing individuals, whose system of laws would serve to the benefit of everyone by limiting potential conflicts of interest. Self control, self government, would be the ultimate expression of their freedom.

   This is why a lack  of seriousness about self government is so hard to comprehend. When Walter Williams writes about a population hoax (Another View, The Advocate, 6/5/17), he gives a definition of overpopulation as "when an ecological footprint of a human population in a given geographical location exceeds the carrying capacity of the place occupied by that group." Then he proceeds to give the population densities of Hong Kong, Congo, Somalia, and Singapore, with numbers that are quite probably correct for those areas. He launches from here into a heap of conclusions about how horrible are the U.N. programs based on population moderation.

   Please notice that not once does he mention anything about the carrying capacity of those locations. He leaves out half of each equation. He gives us fractions that have numerators but no denominators. It's an utterly wrong approach to the problems of overpopulation. It's quite incomprehensible when one considers that Mr. Williams, who serves as a member of the elite when it comes to the formation of public opinion because he is a regular contributor to the editorial pages of this newspaper, doesn't possess the self discipline required to address a real problem head on. It seems to be a deliberate hoax. He wants to create a hoax about population, to the effect that we need more people in the world. As if more people is the solution to our inability to govern ourselves better.

   He confirms as much when he states that "The greatest threat to mankind's prosperity is government, not population growth." No, Mr. Williams, the greatest threat to mankind's prosperity is a lack of government- especially the lack of self government by members of society's elite.

Our president Trump told us long ago, and many times, that his only moral is to win, to beat the other guy. We, on the other hand, see the presidency aspirationally - we expect our president to be capable of making the right decisions, and to have the desire to do so, i.e., to have a conscience guided by the basic moral principles acknowledged and embraced by a community of rational citizens. Trump has neither the capability nor the morality. Rather, he sees every situation as either a challenge to his person and possessions or an opportunity to advance himself or gain more possessions. To put it sharply, he is a sociopath. Meanwhile, the party of Lincoln watches quietly on the sidelines for its chance to do the only thing which animates it - to better the position of the winners in our society, the rich. It is sacrificing our common morality for more money for the moneyed people. Lincoln would be ashamed and angry. So should we.

   Donald Trump is blaming Barack Obama for yesterday's gas attack on Syrian citizens! Could he be more irresponsible? Do an internet search for 'Trump blames Obama' and see how many listings appear. At some point, Trump has to accept the fact that he is now president and, at the very least, make an attempt to look the part. He's the new sheriff in town and somebody just murdered scores of innocents on his watch. Talking about the old sheriff being weak just doesn't cut it.
   Maybe, just maybe, the fact that this administration recently made statements to the effect that Bashar Al Assad's tenure as the leader of Syria will be determined by a vote of the people. Well, we can see where an election in Syria would be headed after Assad kills everyone who opposes him.
   Apparently, Russian warplanes assisted in the attack and this has to trouble our current president immensely. It's very easy to imagine Vladimir Putin coordinating with Assad in this attack as a way to test Trump's willingness to challenge Russia. If Trump doesn't react forcefully, all the distraction about Obama will be ignored and his ties to Russia will be ever more obvious. Putin is nothing if not aggressive and this is a perfect way for him to test the water of Trump's wading pool.
   We're just beginning to see how deep the level of our president's understanding of the world really is. Just like health care, 'Who knew foreign relations could be so complicated?'

An apology to feminists.

   It is my personal belief that if life has any purpose at all, it is in the capacity of humans to rise above their animal instincts and create a harmonious society of individuals whose interests are frequently at odds with one another. This requires the elevation of tribal interests above those of the individual, by the individuals themselves. Of course, when I refer to 'tribe', I refer to all of humanity, and the harmonious society is civilization. The act of civilizing humanity is synonymous with rising above our animal instincts, on an individual basis, and as a society. A society is only as civilized as its meanest members, so it is presumptive for us to collectively refer to ourselves as a civilized nation. Societies may contain individuals who serve as good examples of civilized behavior, but world history has yet to witness a completely civilized nation. The civilization of humanity is an ongoing process, with no end in sight. It requires the free and liberal education of every member of every society to help them rise to this level of self-awareness, self-control, self-government.
   This elevation of tribal interests above the individual's interests may seem counterintuitive; yet it is almost always, in the long run, beneficial to the individual to act in such a manner. That is why I label this attitude 'enlightened self-interest'. Maintaining this attitude is almost impossible without an ever-abiding sense of forgiveness. We have to allow room for the freedom of our neighbors to express their individuality, and they, ours. Forgiveness is the cornerstone of civilization.
   Now that I have called your attention to the necessity of forgiveness, I must confess a certain inability on my behalf  to completely rise above my own animal instincts regarding women. Before you jump to any preconceived conclusion, please consider my upbringing. I come from a good Irish Catholic family, two parents of unassailable virtue who raised six children- an oldest daughter followed by five boys. I also had a fabulous extended family with many cousins and wonderful aunts, uncles, grandparents and other relatives. It would be hard to improve on the family life that I knew as a child. Of course, there were fights and other incidents that kept us firmly grounded in the real world, but my family situation bordered on the ideal. I had three boy cousins that were my age and I had someone to play with whenever our families got together. The women in our family had to be strong minded and independent just to keep up with the activities of the boys. My mom, my sister, my aunts and my cousins were (and still are) all impressive, self-sufficient individuals- none of them required a man to provide them with an identity. And that is at the root of my problem with women.
   I grew up expecting all of them to be that way. As a matter of fact, I almost certainly had too high an opinion of women in general. In my earlier years, they were unadulterated vessels of purity- a Catholic notion grounded in fantasy. My blundering attempts at seduction revolved around the idea that marriage was the only worthy goal of a relationship. Needless to say, this approach resulted in a succession of repeated failures. I was a very physical boy trying to force my behavior into someone else's very metaphysical concept of sexuality. Not a good approach. Only after I finally did get married did I realize that I had nearly abandoned the great physical pleasures of sex in favor of some high-minded ideal of love.
   My first wife, Renee, was a beautiful and exceptionally kind hearted person whose personality led me to try and shoehorn myself into my preconceived notions of what a relationship should be. I always loved her and still do. She was entirely blameless for the failure of the marriage. It was more the fact that I started college soon after we got married and there followed a cascade of sexual opportunities that were irresistible to me. I never did cheat on her but I came pretty close. I asked to be released from the bonds of matrimony and she allowed it to happen. What followed was a comedy of errors.
   I could no longer pretend to be interested in just one woman at a time. That didn't stop me from falling in love, but there was this strange development where love for an individual woman just meant an increase in my love for all women. The more I wanted one, the more I wanted them all. It was almost a dilemma for me, but I managed to avoid it by honestly confessing to the objects of my desire that I only wanted sex from them and nothing more. To my never-ending surprise, this worked like a charm. Suddenly, it was easy to get women to have sex with me.
   Before I go any farther, let me make clear that I don't foster any grandiose notions about my sexual prowess. I always considered myself average in that regard and still do. I am a fun person to be around and consider that to be the source of any attractiveness that I possess. What intrigued me was the different rationales that those women would employ to allow themselves to sleep with me. Some were convinced that once they gave me what they had to offer that I would certainly never want anyone else. Others were convinced that I was lying when I said that I only wanted sex. Quite a few did it out of their competitive nature. If I asked and they said no, I would simply turn to the next pretty girl and hit on her. This would disturb the first girl who would then come after me. It was a great and wonderful time in my life that I would recommend to all young people- sleep with as many partners as you can in order to find out what you really want in a spouse.
   But I should add that I really only did it as an experiment. I came to realize that my original ideas about women were almost completely unfounded. Women are very sexual creatures, every bit as determined as men to get what they want, and every bit as liable to be mean, vicious and untrustworthy. I always wanted to be in a dependable relationship with a woman; I just had to go out and test the waters more than my Catholic upbringing would have recommended. I now have been with my beloved Janice for almost twenty years and things are as good as, if not better, than they were at the beginning. And this leaves me at the point where I must apologize for my instincts.
   I cannot look at an attractive woman and not feel a sexual impulse. I will always find something physical to appreciate about her- her face, her hair, her eyes, her lips, her skin, her hips, her legs, and yes, her tits and ass. My first impulse is always to consider looking her in the eyes and caressing her into submission, or bending her over a railing and nailing her from behind. My experience tells me that she's going to want something or other along those lines. But my better self constrains those impulses and I try to treat her like just another one of the guys.
   So, to all those women who feel oppressed by the evolution of society, I apologize. You are every bit my equal. You deserve equal pay for equal work and you are certainly capable of anything that you set your mind to. Your perspective on life is different than mine and equally valid. I truly do respect your worth as a person; I admire your talents and hard work, but I will never stop wanting contact with your physical attributes.
  

   I love religious people. You know, the ones who are truly humble and who try to do the right thing at all times. They're friendly and easy to get along with; they will go out of their way to help others; they don't cheat, or lie, or steal; they work hard and hardly ever complain. In other words, I love those who walk their walk, whichever walk that may be-the one they profess to believe in. Even those whose beliefs are dark and hopeless, as long as they are true to their stated beliefs, they deserve respect.
   On the other hand, I hate what religions do to the minds of their adherents. Dogma, that great dam of free thought, restricts people from expressing new ideas about the things that they supposedly believe in so strongly. If an idea produces opinions that rise to the level of a belief, surely it can withstand a thorough analysis. (In the same vein, authorities in any arena should stand ready to answer any question with which they are presented. Of course there are things in every area of study that cannot be answered by anyone, but whoever claims to be an authority in a certain subject should be able to answer almost every question posed.) By eliminating doubt, blind faith suppresses that flow of ideas that hallmark the advance of civilization. Whereas civilized behavior ought to be the goal of all religious inclinations, religion itself prevents different peoples from achieving a unified code of ethics and ethical behavior within a society provides the only support to that society's claim to being civilized.
   My understanding of sharia law is simple and undoubtedly incomplete. However simplified by me, apparently it expects corrective intervention between and amongst citizens whenever unlawful behavior is observed. If you observe your friend stealing something, you are expected to try to prevent it. Likewise with all other obvious ethical transgressions.
   In a functioning civilization, all members would serve as rectifying agents in regard to themselves and one another. Seems like a pretty good idea to me- establishing the pursuit of ethical behavior as an occasional theme of everyday conversation. Of course, humans will always find ways to circumvent rules that limit their freedom to act as they please. 
   A friend in Nevada once told me a joke about his Mormon friends, whose faith expects them to refrain from consuming alcohol. It goes like this: How do you prevent a Mormon from drinking all of your beer when you take him fishing? You invite two Mormons to go fishing.

   This is no attack on Mormons; without a doubt, every religion has a version of this joke that applies to their stated beliefs. My personal belief contends that righteous behavior only concerns behavior that has society-wide implications. Other than that, everything is in play, as long as the behavior affects no one besides the individual or some unique group whose beliefs allow such behavior. This idea provides a perfect segue from one unpleasant topic (religion) to another (politics).
   Under what amorphous cloud of reasoning would political correctness be expected from everyone? How stale and uninvigorating life would be without the freedom to get laughs at the expense of our friends and relatives! Typical gatherings with my friends would fail any test of political correctness by a large margin. Why? Because our affections for one another are unquestioned and we provide license to one another to insult, assault, hurl pejoratives, and impugn each others' characters. Group size has everything to do with this concept. The way to provoke laughter is to state the unexpected. Comedians would lose half of their arsenals if they weren't allowed to say unkind things.
   There is one group whose ability to say those types of things should be limited by political considerations-politicians. They are expected to represent the entire population in serious matters, and as such, they should not be allowed to insult anyone. It is a standard of honor that a civilized society should expect from those who have a hand in passing laws that affect everyone. If they happen to say improper things in private, and are recorded unaware, some level of understanding should be extended by the general population.