The Best Minds

I was reading “The Oprah Magazine” or “O”. I will once again claim the defense; my current job leaves limited choices in what I can do for entertainment. I would normally just chalk this magazine as a smarter version of “Cosmo” (yes I read Cosmo too). The thing that prevents me from taking that paradigm when reading O is that Oprah is a cultural phenomenon. For the most part I consider Oprah a force for good in the world, and it appears her heart is in the right place (I really can’t divine this because I don’t know the lady and I make no claims about powers to ascertain the worth of one’s soul by looking into someone’s eyes via the TV.) For those of you unfamiliar with the format of O it generally has your standard beauty magazine kind of stuff, then it usually has a section on how to make your life better, and there always seems to be a couple of articles about making the world a better place.

A reoccurring contribution to O (yes that means I’ve read more than one issue) is a section called, “A Million Ways to Save the World”. The description of the section goes as follows, “Award-winning playwright Eve Ensler resumes her monthly mission: to canvass the best brains around the globe for their earth-fixing ideas. “ Another statement follows about Ensler’s specific causes, but the ideas/advice gathered from the contributing people varies in their scope. Normally I don’t have too many problems with the advice people dish out. I’ve noticed that the people Ensler selects is a bit thin when it comes to selecting scientist, award winning economist, and experts on international law, but that is to be expected considering Ensler’s background. I’m sure if I were to select my great minds for advice there would be several sectors lacking, it is natural.

Now when it comes to having people give ideas that could radically or subtly change the world there is bound to be a conflict of ideas. I understand I’m not likely to agree with all the ideas presented in the article. This particular issue seemed to bother the heck out of me. There were two contributors that really chapped my rear.

The first bit is by James Gilligan, author of Preventing Violence. He states, “In our thermonuclear era, the most immediate threat to our continued survival is human violence. So how do we prevent it? By eliminating inequalities of power and wealth based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Throughout the world, the most powerful predictor of violence is the size of the gap in income and wealth between the rich and the poor. The answer? Elect a Democrat as president. Historically, that has been the most direct and effective way to reduce the gap. As equality increases, violence decreases. This is love in action.”

My first thought was wow did I just hear a high school debate thermonuclear war argument? Yes I just did. Mr. Gilligan fails to address the concept, something is the most immediate doesn’t necessarily make it the most probable. For instance the moon spontaneously falling out of orbit is much more of an immediate threat to human survival than nuclear war. It is however much less likely to happen. But according to Hume you never know, well non empirically that is. But I’m willing to accept that we should be worried about nuclear weapons. Mr. Gilligan makes some jumps I’m not quit willing to take. The assertion that inequality is an indicator of violence I will grant, but to assert that inequality leads to the kind of violence that leads to thermonuclear war I will not grant. The statement also indicates that in order for violence to be curbed one has to decrease arbitrary inequality between individuals. What about nations? Should it be the prerogative of those in one nation to eliminate cultural inequalities of another nation in order to avoid nuclear war? I think such cavalier notions would cause more hostilities than it could cease. The key to Mr. Gilligan’s assertions comes from this comment, Elect a Democrat President. I’ll accept that historically a Democrat president decreases equality gaps more than a Republican within the USA. Trends however do little to shed light on the instance in this case. My example for examination, Jimmy Carter. During the craziness that was the Carter Era, the economy got so bad that the pure madness of supply side economics seemed like a good idea, and it turned out to be better than Carter’s economic policy. Let me say that again, Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, POTUS, had an economic system so bad it made supply side look good. The world was a much more dangerous place and much more likely to go into nuclear war than when a Republican took office. Another factor is the with the powers of globalization inequality gaps that rise in the United States can often lead to decreases in gaps elsewhere. An example of a Democrat leading to the opposite of this is say a Democrat that is a protectionist and while increases average wages in the United States prevents other countries from entering certain sectors of the economy, thus preventing them from having sustainable economic growth that would lead to gaps closing. So while inequalities my decrease at home, where it has been stable regardless, inequalities may grow or be perpetuated abroad where it is less stable. I’m not saying a Democrat would make a bad president or that one shouldn’t vote Democrat. In fact I think there are a lot of Democratic candidates with good ideas, but there are also just as many Republicans with equally valid ideas. Consider the ideas instead of each candidate regardless of their political affiliation. Regardless Mr. Gilligan does convey a good idea about different strategies to curbing violence.

The next brain to pick is an “Award-winning actress and activist”. It is none other than Jane Fonda. Jane Fn’ Fonda. That’s right Jane Fonda. Let me repeat the purpose of the article, “to canvass the best brains around the globe for their earth-fixing ideas.” So you’re telling me that one of the best minds in the world is an actress who’s most notable accomplishments is a film where she plays a space vixen who crash lands on a planet with a man who wears furs. That’s right Jane Fonda. The same Jane Fonda that didn’t mind all too much when the Communist party in Cambodia wiped out nearly a third of its population in a genocide fest. The same Jane Fonda that while not calling the Communist war criminals for genocide would gladly and gleefully call US soldiers war criminals. Yes the same Jane Fonda that never apologized for calling US soldiers war criminals, and never once thought maybe just maybe the communist were a bad thing for south east Asia. So what is the advice of Jane, almost a noble peace prize winner, Fonda? Let me quote, “Mothers and grandmothers, teachers, coaches, and mentors, let’s help our boys become emotionally literate.” Yes we need those people because you know fathers can’t possibly help boys become emotionally literate. Yes because I’ve never heard of a man teaching a boy, “it’s okay to cry, to forgive, to express love.” I’m sorry I didn’t realize that was OK for women to be role models to girls, but for heaven sakes don’t let men be a role model to boys. You know what happens when a father tries to teach a boy how to be a man, that boy grows up to be a homicidal maniac that has the emotions of a sociopath that will no doubt oppress every woman he sees. I’m all about teaching boys to be more advanced when it comes to understanding emotions, but when did fathers lose the capacity to teach those things?