Brexit and Texit

I do not pretend to be a historian or an economist; you don't have to be one or the other, however, to have a good idea about the Brexit debacle.  All you need to have is some understanding of history, some understanding of economics and a lot of insight into the human condition.  Perhaps it is hubris that I consider myself to be a junior member of the latter category; it seems clear to me, nevertheless,  as it seems clear to many, just why the majority of the British voted the way they did.

If an American would like to get a good idea of the type of people who voted for Brexit, all he or she would need to do is go to a Trump rally.  The latter's constituents are largely composed of angry, undereducated whites who have been left behind by globalization.  Proof of this is that the strongest support for Brexit came from the (former) industrialized areas of northern England.  The working-class whites did just fine--or at least much better than now--in the (for them) halcyon days of the 1950s--just as American working class whites prospered during the same period.

Two paradigm changes turned their world upside-down.  I call one external globalization; I call the other internal globalization.

Prior to the rise of international competition.  the function of most Third World countries was to supply raw materials to the West.  This could not last forever.  It is obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by vanity that there is an equal distribution of intelligence among the nations of the world, completely independent of race.  (And, of course, independent of gender as well.)

With the increase of international communication, it did not take the Third World long to rise from its sleep.  "Well, we can do that, too," business leaders, political leaders, and soon the people from Brazil to China proclaimed.  And indeed they could.  Since they began at a much lower level of prosperity, labor was cheap.  Factories in Birmingham  and in cities across America began to disappear like snow on the ground after a flurry in spring.

The new brand of international businessmen, as you already know, prospered.

Nationalism and racism played a big part in the Brexit outcome, just as it does with Trump supporters.  A British comment sums this up well:

Racism was always key to the British feelings of superiority that lay behind  this campaign,just as it is to the American equivalent championed by Trump.
              
                   --  British comment quoted in the New York Times

The less educated are generally less analytical.  They rely more on gut reactions.  The irresponsible British tabloids as well as U.S. equivalents such as Fox News, have been shameless in their promotion of xenophobia and blind nationalism.  Without them, neither Farage or Trump would have been able to get as far as they have.  (Will Trumpeters in Texas try to secede next?  Will Brexit inspire a Texit?)

During their heyday, working-class whites didn't lose any sleep over the conditions of minorities, not to mention the difficult living conditions of people in the Third World.

My message to working-class whites: globalization is not going away.  Get rid of racism and feelings of national superiority.  Blind rage will only increase blood pressure and make matters worse.

I listened to comments from several  more prosperous and more diverse Brits who were quite angry, if not raging, at those older, poorer whites, who, by the way, look just like me, agewise and otherwise.  (It is well known that young people, and nearly all business leaders and pundits of Britain did not want to brexit. )

I loved what Bernie Sanders said about Trump supporters.  He said they have a right to be angry.  They have indeed been treated unfairly.  They are, however, angry for the wrong reasons.    Many liberals simply blame these poor white guys for their precipitous decline, who, I must admit, sometimes, well, often, behave badly.

My message to the white working class: globalization is not going to go away.

What I term "internal globalization" is the progress that minorities have made, and, regarding the angry whites, the majority of whom, I think, are males, the progress women have made as well.  One's fellow citizens who are black are not going to say, 'Well, we're better educated now.  Been there, done that--now let's give all the power back to the whites."  Similarly, fellow citizens who are women are not going to say, "Well, we're better educated now as well.  Been there, done that--now let's go back to the kitchen!"  Not going to happen.

The real reason Brexit succeeded is due to the inequality of British society.  The reason why a demagogue like Trump is (I hate to  say it!)  got the Republican nomination for the U.S. presidency, is due to income inequality in the United States--which is bad enough in Britain, but even worse in the United States.

Compounding the problem is innovation.  There is still a lot of industry in the United States as well as in Great Britain--but it is increasingly automated.  The jobs aren't there.

Another problem is that the young and educated, who are doing fine, ignore the older and less educated, just as the working class whites in their days of prosperity ignored minorites.

Those raging whites, who are voting for those who advocate horrible policies, are not cogs in globalization's machine: they are worthy human beings, just like everyone else.

What are we to do?  THOSE THAT HAVE MUST SHARE!  I'm not advocating for complete equality, for talents differ. (Demanding complete equality is like trying to strictly practice "Turn the other cheek" --We'd all be cheekless pretty damn quick.) Innovators deserve more money, I have no problem with that.  But they must never forget that innovation, which is great for them, has not been so great for everyone else.

Everyone deserves a living wage!  Everyone deserves adequate housing--(not a mansion)! Everyone deserves to live in a safe neighborhood!  Education must be widely available and affordable!

I dislike nationalism--look what it did to Europe!  And I abhor racism--most whites have no idea of the ongoing suffering, the oppression of talent and the deflection of happiness that racism causes. You, therefore, have a good idea of how I would have voted in Britain or how I will vote in the U.S. presidential election later this year.

The world has changed.  Whether one liked the 1950s or not, those times are not coming back.   We need to adjust and to act.

Members of the white working class, nay, members of all those who have faced  misfortune due to globalization:  turn off your TVs and do everything you can to replace our selfish, narrow-minded, egotistical leaders with those who treat everyone like the astoundingly unique entities we are--human beings!

I would love to be even cautiously optimistic.

Buddhism Through Pictures: The Four Noble Truths

This little article presents a very practical, non-dogmatic assessment of the Four Noble Truths, a cornerstone of Buddhist teaching, especially of the Theravada, the Buddhist tradition of Southeast Asia.  I have accompanied the discussion of each of the truths with a photo from the natural world.

Written with the general reader in mind, the article aspires not only to inform, but to inspire the reader to adopt a course of action that inevitably leads to a better life.

First, a (very) brief background regarding the origination of the Four Noble Truths.

Gautama Siddhartha, known as the Buddha after his enlightenment, was born some time during the reign of King Bimbisara (558-491 BCE). At the time of the child's birth, Asita, a sage, predicted that Gautama would either be a king or a great sage.  His father, Suddhodana, a chief of the Sakya clan, wanted to assure that he grew up to be a king.  He did his very best to shelter his son from all signs of suffering.  Venturing out of the palace on several occasions, Gautama, now a young man, encountered a sick man, a decaying corpse, and, finally, a sage.  He was shocked to the core, coming face to face with suffering for the first time in his life.  The peaceful expression of the sage, however, inspired him to leave the palace to discover the meaning of life, especially how to avoid suffering.  He was 29; after searching for 6 years, he became enlightened after meditating 49 days under a pipal tree, which thereafter has been known as the Bodhi tree.  Traditionally, the Four Noble Truths became apparent to him in a flash of insight at the time of this enlightenment.

The First Noble Truth, Dukkha, Suffering

Does the First Truth proclaim that "life is suffering?"  If this were its chief message, Buddhism would be a miserable religion.  People want to be challenged by truth; they want to be consoled by truth as well. And Buddhist truth is very much able to serve both functions.  There must be, therefore, more to dukkha than suffering.  There is indeed.

A monk from Sri Lanka once told me that in Pali--the dialect of Sanskrit which Buddha spoke and in which much of the ancient scriptures are written, one word can mean many things. I will explain by analogy.

The English language, has a very large vocabulary; each word tends to have a specific meaning.  This is not true for German, which is an imagistic  language..  (You generally don't need a dictionary, once you know the basics.)  For instance, the word, "Vorstellung"--which is composed of  "stellen" "to put," and of "vor," "before."  If you put a concept before your mind, it's an idea.  Hence, the title of Schopenhauer's famous treatise, "The World as Will and Idea," that is, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.  If you put something before an audience, it is a performance, hence "Vorstellung" also means a performance at the theater  If you place someone before others, you are introducing that person  Hence, "Vorstellung" also means a social introduction.  One word, Vorstellung, means performance, introduction as well as idea.  You can figure the meaning out from the component parts and from the context in which it is used; this almost never occurs in English.

Pali is probably not as imagistic as German, but the word dukkha definitely has many shades of meaning. Suffering is one of them, but only as a secondary meaning.  The principal meaning of dukkha is insufficiency.  What Buddha is telling us is that nothing in the phenomenal world is going to satisfy your heart's desire. Are you old enough to remember the old hit of the Rolling Stones, "You Can't Always Get What You Want?"  What Buddha taught is that you're never going to get what you want if you're searching in the wrong place.  And nearly everyone, especially if young, is searching in the wrong place. For instance, if you're trying to be happy through money and power, you might feel satisfied  for a while, but you will eventually fail,  Happiness, ultimately, is not found in material things.  This is the truth of dukkha.


2. The Second Noble Truth, Samudaya, the Origination of Suffering

In medicine, ascertaining the cause of a disease is an essential step in determining how the disease is best treated.  Without a diagnosis, a doctor is much less likely to effect a cure.  Similarly with Buddhism: the first step in curing life's dis-ease is understanding what causes it.  This is the subject of the Second Noble Truth, the origination of dukkha. According to the Buddha, the cause of dukkha is tanha, thirst, that is, desire.  With a little reflection, this truth is easily acknowledged.  This view is nevertheless of crucial importance in modern, competitive societies in which excessive desire is rampant,  A good example is a study which shows that if a C.E.O. determines that a C.E. O. in a similar field makes more money, he is unhappy until his salary is increased accordingly, even though he has more--usually much more--money to meet all reasonable needs. A positive example of the relation of desire to happiness is the case of Denmark.  Denmark, based on objective criteria, has been determined to be the happiest country in the world.  Why?  When a Dane was asked that question, she replied that Danes don't expect much.  When something good happens, it is more or less unexpected which results in, well, happiness.

The modern world seems to be singing a new version of the Rolling Stones classic, "We must always get what we want!"  The unfairness of society and disparities in the natural distribution of talent and of intelligence makes "getting what you want" almost impossible.  And even if one should, briefly, get what one wants, the First Truth assures that this would not be ultimately satisfactory.

What are we to do then?  That is the subject of the Third Noble Truth.


3. The Third Noble Truth, Nirodha, the cessation of Dukkha

Suffering is fueled by wants; it drives the vehicle of body/mind around and around in vicious circles. We don't have to drive or be driven on an inevitable crash course from birth to death.  There is a way out.  This is Good News, the joyful tiding of the Third Truth.
Buddha taught that the ultimate goal in life is to escape it.  Individualism must be completely transcended.  Every desire is a hindrance; every desire must go. I--you see, I'm still using the pronoun "I"-- don't agree.

In ancient India, only an absolute answer to the problem of life would do.  It was an (un)breeding ground for sages; those who remain in the world yet try to make it a better place are classical Buddhism's  second-class citizens.  Buddhism is of course right in asserting that we don't have to drive ourselves to death.  However, the body/mind vehicle, the product of Darwinian evolution, assures that nearly all of us will remain on the road.   So what are we to do?  Slow down; enjoy the scenery; become a better driver; take pleasure in sharing the road.

For me, the teaching of Buddhism is absolutely right only when it is given a relative interpretation.  I will explain, using an analogy from the quintessential American sport, baseball.  Let's say you're out in left field.  Let's say that left field is a very dangerous place and you're completely unaware of the danger.  Let us imagine that the Buddha is out in right field; he wants you to return safely to home plate.  He knows that the path from right field to home plate is arduous enough, and that the path from home plate to right field can only be traversed by an all-star sage.  The call of the Buddha, however, is infectious.  The man lost in left field is now on the path to Nirvana, the abode of Buddha.  Through much hard work, he reaches home plate.  This is more than enough!

To use a more traditional analogy: the message of Buddhism is to take those in a burning house to relative safety.

This aspect of Buddhism is similar to a teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.  If one really turned the other cheek on all occasions, one wouldn't be able to survive for long.  Who turns his cheek to a fanatic is apt to lose his head. I think Jesus was making a necessary exaggeration here.  He realized that most humans are much more apt to punch each cheek of a neighbor rather than to meekly expose their own cheeks to the wrath of a neighbor.  By using an exaggeration, Jesus perhaps hoped that he would his listeners to act in a less self-centered manner.  The teaching is, therefore, not to be taken literally.

So let us practice Buddhism in a practical manner.  One of the chief causes of misery in the world is indeed inordinate desire.  If those in power had better insight into the harm inordinate desire causes, they would realize that they're on the wrong path; once on the right path, rampant inequality, the bane of modern civilization, would soon be vastly reduced.  How can one act selfishly once one knows the truth? 

Let's begin by tamping down our own inordinate desires in order to help not only ourselves, but everyone else as well. We will thus leave most worries and anxieties behind. 


4. The Fourth Noble Truth, The Noble Eightfold Path


                                


The Eightfold Path is represented here by the eight-petaled flower of the clematis.  This photo was taken in our back yard.

The purpose of this article is to introduce the unfamiliar reader to a practical interpretation of Buddhism. A thorough understanding of the eight steps of the path is very useful, but this is not the place for it.  (There are many excellent references, such as "What the Buddha Taught," by Walpola Rahula and "Buddhism: An Introduction and Guide," by Christmas Humphreys.) I will therefore gloss over all of steps but two, the ones I consider to be of crucial importance.

First Petal: Right View--Acknowledging that the Buddhist path is the right one on which to travel.
Second Petal: Right Resolve--One firmly decides to travel along this path, and begins immediately.
Third Path: Right Speech: Speech that demonstrates kindness and wisdom; avoidance of chatter and gossip.
Fourth Petal: Right Conduct: Unselfish actions based on kindness and love--including kindness and love for oneself.
Fifth Petal: Right Livelihood--The avoidance of livelihoods that cause harm; the practice of socially  beneficial livelihoods.
Sixth Petal: Right Effort: walking the path with unflagging zeal,

The above is, of course, an exceedingly non-exhaustive summary.  We will now briefly turn to the final two petals, Right Mindfulness and Right Samadhi (concentration)--these are the petals of meditation.

Everyone should meditate!  The benefits are legion.  For instance, functional MRIs (fMRIs) of the brain reveal that meditation lights up the entire brain, while non-meditative thought only causes firings of neurons locally. During meditation, as it were, your brain is jogging and receives benefits at least as salubrious as the ones one obtains by exercising the body. (In my own experience, which is admittedly anecdotal, I have seen Buddhist monks who, in their eighties and nineties, are still very much alert and vigorous.)

In the West, the health benefits of meditation are stressed: reduction of stress, lower blood pressure, reduction in anxiety and worry, etc.  In the East, the emphasis is on the purpose of meditation: the attainment of wisdom, the experiential knowledge that everything is connected.  I am a strong advocate of the Eastern view, which, of course, includes all the health benefits of stress reduction as well.

Talking about meditation is useful only if it results in practice.

Here is what Buddha taught about the petal of contemplation:

Herein the monk remains contemplating the body as body...; he remains contemplating feeling as feeling...; he remains contemplating mental states as mental states...; he remains contemplating mental objects as mental objects.  

                                                --from the Satipatthana Sutta

What is essential to note here is the absence of personal pronouns.  In the stream of consciousness there are no yours and mines.  These imaginary "yours" and "mines" are like debris which can obstruct the flow of consciousness and cause stagnation.

The seventh part of the eightfold path, mindfulness, teaches us that contemplation must be much more than practicing formal meditation twice daily.  Mindfulness must be brought into our daily lives.  If one, on the cusp of getting angry, says to oneself, "This is mind plus anger," the personal element dissolves and the anger dissipates. 

Meditation, in the broadest sense, is a proven way to have, as it were, a salutary out-of-body experience while remaining in the body; a proven way to have a near-death experience, as it were, while increasing one's vitality. Recall the etymology of the word 'ecstasy'--being beside oneself, that is, transcending the self.  It is, as it were, an infectious ease.

Words, words, words.  To one who has never heard piano music, praise for it rings hollow.  But if this praise inspires one to get a CD of, say, Chopin's ballades by, say, Evegeny Kissen, and to listen, really listen, the praise will have served its purpose.

Summary

I advocate a practical Buddhism.  Darwinian evolution assures that very few of us will be able to completely transcend our selves--most of us, including me, don't even want to.  As Ramana Maharshi, the greatest Hindu sage of the twentieth century, taught, once complete transcendence is obtained, there is nothing more to do.  This is indeed a beautiful phenomenon when it occurs, but it is exceedingly rare. I, for one, and most likely you, as well, find much in the phenomenal world worth experiencing and doing--for one's own sake as well as for the sake of others.

It is obvious that there is much narcissism around--and within-us.  Mediation is a proven way to find balance, a way of eliminating excess desire without destroying one's sense of individuality.  For you, who consist of thoughts ultimately impersonal as the air you breathe; for you, who will remain convinced that you are much more than air; for you for whom thoughts are sometimes like live crabs scurrying about in  increasing desperation in a pan of water on a lit stove --for you there is a practical method to manage the inevitable difficulties and failures of life.  Buddhism provides it. What are you waiting for?

Eleven Reflections on the Color Yellow

1.

It's morning.
What can I say?
Another yellow day.


2.

What do I have to live for? she asked me.
Yellow, I replied
Yellow? she questioned, surprised.
Yellow.


3.

What does yellow want?
Yellow is enough!


4.

A long time ago, an acquaintance of mine received a grant to teach poetry in the schools.  He showed me some of the interesting poems the kids came up with; I was impressed.  Over the course of half a century, however,  I forgot them all except this one, written by a Chinese girl, who at the time was about seven years old:


Yellow, yellow, yellow.
The sky is yellow, the sun
is yellow, my skin is yellow--
Must be a yellow day.


5.

Their wheelchairs are connected by their arms;
holding hands, they look up.
We who are about to die salute Thee!
Not the latest Roman emperor;
who, then?  Emperor Sun.


6.

Their bodies are connected; they're holding hands.
The nurse, from her side of the glass, shows them
two swaddled infants, twins.
We, for those about to live, salute Thee!
Not the latest Emperor Narcissus;
you, then?  Emperor Sun.


7.

It's also the color of urine!
Precisely.


8.

Do you really understand
why the egg stain on a toddler's bib
is just the way it is?
If you do, congratulations!
You know everything now.


9. 

When the yellow bird stops singing,
you know you are trapped in your Mine.


10. 

Yellow is nature.  Yellow is indifferent;
this is the way it should be--
Yellow is also our nature, yet
human beings must be different.
This is the way it should be.


11.

It's midnight.
What can I say?
Another yellow day.

A Man Named Omar Mateen

1.

A young internet pundit, who like just about every broadcaster at the time of this writing, a few days after the horrific carnage at a gay bar in Orlando, was discussing the tragedy. The pundit said, "I am not going to show his (the mass murderer's) picture or mention his name." He had no desire to "idolize" a monster.  The man who committed those deeds, in the pundit's view, was no longer a man; he had become an evil excrescence.

This is what Mr. Trump had to say:

"The killer, whose name I will not say or ever use, was born in Afgan."  No, Donald Trump, Omar Mateen was born in the state of New York, just like you. (No comment on your Bushism, the originator of which, remember? once said, "Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible diseases.")

I recall that Anderson Cooper refused to mention the name of Adam Lanza,  the young man who killed 26 people, many of them very young children, at an elementary school in Massachusetts.

The man who committed the heinous killings was Muslim.  He was also one of us. 

Omar Mateen was a Muslim, but he was just as American as the Christian of European descent who gunned down children at Sandy Hook; Omar Mateen's family had emigrated from Afghanistan, but he was just as American as the American, of Chinese ethnicity, who slaughtered thirty-two students at Virginia Tech; yes, Omar Mateen was a young American Muslim man, just as American as the young Christian man who gunned down outstanding Christians at a church in South Carolina..

What is something they all had in common?  They were born human beings and remained human beings, despite their despicable deeds.  No, Mr. Pundit, I don't want to idolize them; I don't want to demonize them either.  The brains of these young men had been factories of delusions for many years before they exploded. 

 Excoriating dynamite is not an effective way to remain unscathed.  
To those who refuse to mention the name of the latest author of the latest misery, I have six words to say:

Omar Mateen, Omar Mateen, Omar Mateen.

2.

All of these young men were severely disturbed.  They were locked inside their troubled psyches. They had no friends. They were unable to contribute, to love, or to enjoy.  They were loners.  They considered themselves failures.  They were outcasts.  They were ignored and, in some cases, bullied. Rage shouted down whatever small voice was left of their conscience. They wanted to die. 

It takes a village to make a violent murderer, Mr. Trump, nobody is born that way.  No man is an island until a man-made lake of indifference and hostility separates them from the rest of us.  Were they responsible for their deeds?  If so, we are responsible too.

Are we our brothers' keepers?  If not, we are more likely to become our brothers' victims.

We are chasing hurricanes, armed with broken jars, trying to incarcerate the wind. 

In the June 2016 edition of The Atlantic, there is an article by Stephen Cave entitled, "There's No Such Thing as Free Will."  I was aware that most current scientists and many philosophers of the present and of the past denied human agency; there has been new research that strongly indicates that free will is an illusion.

I found it interesting that, according to Cave, some current research asserts that, once the average Joe and the average Jane realize this, they tend to be less charitable, less honest, less good.  I am sure that research would also indicate, however, that when one realizes that free will is an illusion, the source of shame and failure becomes an illusion as well--but that research hasn't been done.  What is another likely benefit of realizing there's no free will?  Acceptance of life just as it is.  How could someone be so angry as to become a mass murderer, if he or she accepted life, the good and the bad, just the way it is?  Another result would be compassion for oneself.  Why am I so troubled?  I didn't choose my genes.  I didn't choose my environment.  It's not my fault.  I'm as good as anyone else.  Once a troubled young person comes to this conclusion, the likelihood of causing trouble to oneself or to others is greatly diminished.

I must note that I don't believe the research that suggests that  the knowledge of the illusion of human agency is necessarily deleterious.  True, it is an illusion.  But it is an illusion of an illusion: the separate self is a phantom as well.  Science knows this; it is also one of the pillars of Buddhism, that is, the teaching of non-self or anatta. Once this truth is deeply experienced, burdens are lifted.  After the tarnish of ignorance is polished away by knowledge, one is dazzled by the beauty of one's inner gem, identical copies of which are present inside all.  One then is "free" to act according to one's true nature.  And the true nature of everyone is good, very good; I have no doubt about that.

If your son had been killed by Omar Mateen, you would be devastated.  If your daughter had been killed by Adam Lanza, the mass murderer at Sandy Hook Elementary, you would have been devastated as well.  Does it matter who pulled the trigger? Does it matter that all the mass murderers had guns?

Once the illusion of human agency becomes apparent, the gross injustice of our justice system, based largely on retribution, becomes apparent as well.  Violent criminals are no more evil than an avalanche. Trying to handcuff a volcano is even more stupid than promising to build a wall between Mexico and the United States, which is stupid enough.  Once we realize that we are all, deep down, innocent; once society agrees with Emerson, who famously wrote, "One to me is shame and fame"; once we realize that weeds are just as important as redwoods, there would be peace.  An effective, necessary and just justice system would also result.  The true purpose of the courts is to protect and prevent the victimization of others.  This necessitates the temporary or sometime permanent removal from society of an individual who is known to be dangerous. This has, or should have, nothing to do with vengeance. 

Omar Mateen, I mourn your death.  But you--through no fault of your own--were already dead, as far from your true nature as earth is from a distant star.  Most of all I mourn for the victims of this atrocity, who, like you, were young, and who, unlike you, were  full of life: Anthony Luis Laureanodisla, Jean Carlos Mendez-Perez, Franky Jimmy Dejeus Valazquez,  Amanda Alvear, Martin Benitez Torres, Luis Daniel Wilson-Leon, Mercedez Maarisol-Flores, Xavier Emmanuel Serrano Rosado, Giberto Ramon Silva Menendez, Simon Adria Carrillo Fernandez, Oscar A. Aracena-Montero, Enrique L. Rios, Jr., Miguel Ariel Honorato, Javier Jorge-Reyes, Joel R. Paniagua, Jason Benjamin Josephat, Corey James Connell, Juan P. Rivera-Valazquez, Luis Daniel Conde, Shara Evan Tomlinson, Juan Martinez, Jerald Anthony Wright, Gerald Arthur Wright, Leroy Valentin Fernandez, Devin Eugene Crosby, Jonathan Antonio Vega, Jean C. Rodriguez, Rodolfo Ayala-Ayala, Brenda Lee Marquez McCool, Yilnery Rodriguez Sulivan, Chrisopher Andrew Leinonen, Angel L. Candalario-Pedro, Frank Hernandez, Antonio Devon Brown, Chrisopher Joseph Sanfeliz and Akyra Monet Murray. 

Who could see all those beautiful faces without shedding a tear?

In the name of all these innocent victims, we must, I repeat, stop chasing hurricanes, armed with broken jars, trying to incarcerate the wind.

3.

Omar Mateen, Omar Matten, why, why did you commit mass-murder?  Better question to myself and to everyone else: if you had been in the same shoes as Mr. Mateen--that is, if you had had the same brain which had been shaped by the same environment--why would you have done the same thing?  

Paradoxically, the absence of free will does not equal fatalism.  Environments can and must be changed.

We need gun control.  We also need to make better shoes.

The Bathroom Bill and Civil Rights

Kennedy put a man on the moon.  Obama wants to put a man in a woman's bathroom.

During a rare bout of insomnia recently, I found this fake little gem of asinine humor on social media, posted not by a boy at the stage of life when scatological humor is to be expected, but by an older college-educated adult at a stage of life when it is not.

Now that the CNN-type of media conflagration, which has fed on this issue like flames on dry leaves, has been tamped down to a low-burning field of yesterday's newspapers by the weight of masses ready to be bathed in the glow of something else, I've decided to address this issue from a viewpoint that is neither conservative nor liberal, but one that is humane as well as religious.  I do respect the opinion of others, and readily admit that I have been wrong in the past and and will be wrong in the future; I am convinced, however, that the correct solution to the problem of bathroom rights for transsexuals entails a Kantian moral imperative, allowing no other course of action for an impartial, analytical, and spiritual mind.

First, some background

BACKGROUND

The Charlotte City Council passed a city ordinance in March, 2016, one of the provisions of which is the right of transsexuals to use the bathroom of their choice, one that corresponds to their gender identity. The law was limited to public facilities including those in schools.  Regarding schools, the new legislation required that "students should be free to use the bathroom...(corresponding to) their (gender)  identity, once a parent or guardian calls" and requests a change in the record.

Many have not given thought to the issues that led to the passage of the ordinance; it must have struck them as strange, even perverse.  There were protests.  The governor of North Carolina, Robert McCrory, probably seeing this as an easily winnable culture-wars-battle that would give him and his party a political advantage, was, well, outraged. On March 23, 2016, the North Carolina general assembly, under the governor's leadership, passed "The Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act,"  which overturned the Charlotte ordinance and replaced it with legislation that requires, under penalty of law, that an individual using public facilities use the one designated for the gender on that individual's birth certificate.

The conflict between a liberal city council and a conservative state assembly soon escalated to a national one, with the usual depressing results.  President Obama had his attorney general, Loretta Lynch, take up the issue.  According to her,  McCrory's "bathroom bill" is in violation of the Civil Rights Act and is, therefore, illegal.

The governor's response was swift and furious: the federal government is changing the courts "into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over common sense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights."  His bathroom bill was passed "to protect North Carolina citizens from extremist efforts to undermine civility and normalcy in our everyday lives."

Loretta Lynch stated that the bathroom bill reminded her of the heinous laws of the Jim Crow South.


WHO IS RIGHT?

The answer is not difficult once one has analyzed the conflict logically, morally and impartially. First, let us consider three factors which can help one come to the right decision.

A. Factors to Consider

1.  Some of the loudest protests against the attorney general's decision came from evangelical Christians.   One of the leaders of that community in North Carolina, Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, dismissed the federal override because "God created two distinct genders."   In other words, transsexuals, by their very existence, are a perversion of God's law.  Allowing them to use the bathroom of their choice is, therefore, contrary to Scripture.

It is not difficult to point out the fallacy of this position.  As one well knows from reading my articles, I believe in evolution, not so-called creation science.  But even if one is a fundamentalist--and there are many decent fundamentalists--it is still incumbent on the  believer to love one's neighbor as oneself.  Grahams's position is not in accord with the greatest moral  law of all.

Now let us examine the facts.

Buddhism, as well as science, teaches us that everything is in flux.  The Buddhist term for this is anicca,  or non-permanence.  The fact of constant change can be disconcerting, since we all cling to our identities.  Sure, Robert is still called Robert at 75--but is he the same Robert who existed a half century earlier? No.

One of the ways to obscure the fact of anicca is by assuring oneself that one has a "permanent" gender identity.

Studies have also shown that gender identification comes early.  I read an article that stated that little children notice gender before race--and color-consciousnesses, unfortunately, is very prevalent in contemporary culture.  When one feels there is a mismatch between the gender one was born with and the gender of one's inner reality, the brain's binary system regarding gender can short-circuit.  This produces anxiety in the person affected as well as in most others--although the latter often mask anxiety with hostility.

Rigid categorizations, however, exist in the mind and not in nature.  Nature allows for exceptions and variety.  For instance, the existence of heterosexuality and homosexuality is a continuum.  Some people are exclusively heterosexual; some are exclusively homosexual; some are in between.  Another is the color of hair.  Some people have blond hair; some people have black hair; some people have hair that is neither black nor blond, but somewhere in between.

And so it is with gender identity.  Most people are able to fit into gender roles that are consistent with society's norms--with occasional difficulty, perhaps; nevertheless.  But there will always be some who are not able to fit into a gender binary system.  This is a natural phenomenon; it is not a matter of choice.  Could one ever imagine choosing transsexualism?  (It is currently estimated that transsexuals compose 1.5% of the general population.  This is most likely an underestimate.  In any case, transsexuals are not going away.) Transsexuals are much more likely to be abused and bullied; they are much more likely to be unemployed--over 40% have attempted suicide, a truly alarming statistic.

Virtually all psychiatrists and psychologists agree: transsexualism is not a choice.

The false belief that God created two distinct sexes with no gradations in between flouts nature.  Franklin Graham is wrong.

2. The argument has been made that without the bathroom bill sexual predators could cross-dress, enter the ladies' room, resulting in stalls full of screaming victims.  A reprehensible commercial was made to this effect, showing a man in a dress disappearing into a female facility; the sound of a little girl screaming followed.

There has, to my knowledge, never been such a case.  Even if there has been one, would that allow the man to plead non-guilty since he entered the bathroom of his choice?  What is preventing a man from engaging in this criminal activity now?

3.  The following are two photos of transsexuals, a trans man and a trans woman.

How would most women feel if this trans man entered the ladies' room, as required by the bathroom bill?  Conversely, how would men feel if this trans woman entered the men's room?  Not to mention the humiliation the transsexuals would feel, who have surely been humiliated enough.

There is no doubt that transsexuals have been using the bathroom of their choice, anyway.  The issue that gave rise to the bill had to do with a young person in public school who transitioned sometime during the years of schooling.  That child, who was known to be, say, a boy in the fourth grade, is now, say, a trans woman in the tenth grade. She, who would otherwise go unnoticed, is now notorious. (Once that child graduates, she will most likely use the ladies' room without causing any problems.)

With the bathroom bill, the probable widespread phenomenon of transsexuals using the bathroom of their choice would now be against the law.  Does it make sense to criminalize behavior that does  no harm; is it right to pass legislation that would result in embarrassment for all? Why not let a person transition in high school?  Why not indeed.

We will include with the most important factor of all: why allowing transsexuals to use the bathroom of their choice is  a moral imperative.

The Moral Solution

According to Governor McCrory, if North Carolina permits the "social experimentation" of giving transsexuals the right to choose a facility for the gender opposite to the one they were born with, North Carolinians would be violating the "dignity and privacy"  of the majority, especially heterosexual women and girls.  What about the majority?  Do they have to feel uncomfortable as well?

Well, in certain cases--and this is one of them--yes.  

The comfort religion provides is important, but the challenges of religion are important as well.  Religion is not there solely to provide the self-satisfaction one gets by taking a warm bath,  shielding oneself from the vicissitudes of the weather outside.  Sometimes religion and morality demand that we stand up and take a cold shower.

No matter if one is religious, agnostic or an atheist, one must direct one's actions toward living more in accord with the greatest moral law of all: namely, to love one's neighbors as oneself.  This does not mean only neighbors who look like you and share the same values.  We are required to love our neighbor whom we perceive to be different, as well.  We must first ask: is the neighbor doing harm?  If not, we must love his or her behavior as well, as Simone Weil taught.  We must follow this moral principal even if it takes us out of our comfort zone.  The necessary cold shower might cause some discomfort, but after it is over we have the great consolation of living more in accord with the greatest principle of moral life. This line of reasoning is applicable to all situations in which one must examine one's conscience and make what one believes is the right decision, whether this causes  discomfort or not.

Transsexuals are not doing anybody any harm by being transsexuals; that's what they are, it is not a choice.  Therefore, compassion demands that those who identity as women should be allowed to use the women's restroom.  Is the discomfort that heterosexuals might feel in any proportion to the many discomforts society imposes on transsexuals?  Shouldn't compassion trump a "dis-ease" that needs to be transcended anyway?

There is an important general lesson here: feeling good about an action does not mean that that action is a moral one.  Psychologists have determined that moral responses are located in two areas of the brain.  The first is the so-called gut reaction, which involves less evolved sections of the brain.  The second entails moral reasoning, centered in the frontal lobes, the most evolved sections of the brain.  This does not mean that a gut-reaction is always wrong; the way to determine whether it is or not is to discover whether it passes the test of moral analysis.

Many individuals and organizations realize that McCrory's decision was immoral.  Concerts have been canceled.  Businesses have threatened to leave the state.  McCrory, being a politician, couldn't ignore the loss of income and passed some window-dressing legislation that is unable to hide the idol behind the smoke screen.

President Obama insists that his decision is in accord with the Golden Rule.  Governor McCrory thinks otherwise.  I hope I have made it clear why the president is right; I trust I have made it clear why Governor McCrory is wrong as well.

If we all decided to pass gut reactions through the alembics of moral analysis and certify as genuine only those that have successfully passed through the higher analysis, the world would be a much better place.  It is not a crime to avoid judging someone before walking a mile in his moccasins; it is not a crime to be impartial; it is not a crime to think.  

\\\\