The Decline of Courtesy Titles

As a general rule, we Americans don't like titles. The Constitution even clearly states (Article 1, Section 9) that "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States." 

We have no Dukes or Earls*, Counts or Viscounts, Barons or Baronets, Lords or Ladies. Of course, we do have an aristocracy here in the US of A, we just pretend it isn't there, and we don't mark it with formal titles of nobility. The American aristocracy is based on wealth and the perception, if not the reality of success, rather than on family lineage **.

Most of us who aren't in the military, a fraternal organization, or some stratified business don't have titles. We're not "colonels," "generals," or "admirals;" "Illustrious Potentates***" or "Grand Poobahs;" or "Presidents" or "CEOs." We're just ... well ... average Joes or Janes.

Which brings me to this 2017 article from Intellectual Takeout: "Why We Should Bring Back 'Ma’am' and 'Sir'." The article laments the loss of the courtesy and gentility we used to convey by using courtesy titles like sir and ma'am. Here's the money quote:

"Unfortunately, the day is coming when no one will make the mistake of calling [someone] either 'sir' or 'ma’am' because the generation now coming of age believes a clipped 'No' or 'Yes' is all that is required of them, no matter the title, education or age of the person to whom they are speaking."

Some people object to the use of sir and ma'am (or miss) because they're viewed as archaic and sexist, and perhaps they are - sexist, I mean, rather than archaic. After all, in today's cultural environment, it's not considered polite or proper to draw a distinction in address between a married ("ma'am," in verbal address and "Mrs" in writing) and a single ("miss") woman. I must admit, though, that I use both terms when addressing women, but use them as a matter of courtesy based on age and maturity rather than on marital status^†. And not many people outside of the military (and my family) say "sir" or "ma'am" any more when addressing an adult whose name they do not know^††.

I believe that something is lost when we don't address people courteously. The late comedian Rodney Dangerfield used to moan, "I don't get no respect," and it's true that many of us today don't show respect to one another. Indeed, the showing of respect based on age, education, or significant achievement ... or anything else ... is often viewed as being subservient to another person. We demand respect from others, but are unwilling to give it ourselves.

How should we address people we don't know? There's no single answer on which all agree, but this summary from an interesting article on dictionary.com sounds good to me:

"What is the proper manner to address men and women^††† today though? Well, it isn’t impolite to ask how someone wants to be addressed. Respect can come in the way you address someone as well as in the thought that goes into that address."

Have a good day. Be courteous and respectful. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* The Duke of Earl doesn't count.

** Although we have lots of "aristocratic" families in various realms: in politics, the Kennedys and Bushes; in entertainment, the Fondas and the Kardashians; in business and industry the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and ... yes ... Trumps.


*** I can see myself as an "Illustrious Potentate" ... see my post on that topic here.

† I don't think "Ms" translates well from the printed page to the realm of the spoken word ... "miz" grates on the ear in a way "ma'am" or "miss" doesn't. But that's just me.

†† "Master" was once used as the form of address for a young man, but nobody says that any more.

††† It gets even more complicated ... some people are pushing "Mx" as a gender-neutral abbreviation. And I have no idea how to pronounce it ... "mix" sounds stupid to my traditional ear.

The Unwritten Rules of Airplane Etiquette

Agnes and I have spent a lot of time in airplanes over the years. There were the multiple back-and-forths across the Atlantic for military reassignments, as well as the trips back to Germany to visit Agnes's family, our trip to Montreal a few years back, and our various flights to Florida, Ohio, and California for vacations and family visits. We have several more trips coming up as well, both within the US and back to Germany.

When Agnes's parents were still alive, she made a very large number of transatlantic flights and accumulated a lot of frequent flier miles, allowing us to upgrade some of our flights to business class ... which, let me tell you, I could really get used to. But since we don't fly as far or as often nowadays, we're generally stuck with the usual cattle car of "economy class" (also known as "coach" or "steerage").

And that leads me to today's topic - an article from Thrillist that my friend Kat recently shared on her Facebook page: The 21 Unwritten Rules of Flying You're Probably Breaking.

We all know how miserable air travel has become, but there are a few unwritten rules that, if observed, would help make things more bearable. You can read all 21 of them for yourself, but there are three that I think are worth special notice ...

#7. If you can’t lift your own bag, don’t carry it on. You know what I mean ... it was bad enough before the airlines started charging for checked bags, but now people try to cram as much as possible into "carry-ons" the size of an upright piano. When they try to hoist those huge, heavy bags into the overhead bins, invariably one of them falls on someone's head, usually mine. If your bag is that heavy, don't be a cheap ass clown - go ahead and check it before you hurt somebody.

#10. Don't recline in economy. You're in your seat, with the tray table down and your laptop or your food on it, and suddenly the bozohead in the seat in front of you - without warning - suddenly slams the seat back as far as it will recline, knocking your things into your lap, banging your forehead, and reducing your paltry few inches of leg room to nothing. I know it's torture, but don't recline the seat, at least without giving the person behind you fair warning.

And ...

#14. Don’t HALF stand up when someone needs to get out of the row. You know this one ... you're in the window seat and you need to go to the bathroom, but the people in the middle and aisle seats don't want to get up and move out of your way - they just sort of scrunch up halfway in their seats and twist a bit to the side, forcing you to squeeze past them ... something made much more difficult when the people in the row ahead have reclined their seats all the way back (see #10). Be a mensch - stand up and move out into the aisle, for pete's sake.

There are 18 more unwritten rules in the article ... check 'em out before you fly, and everyone will be happier.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

"Civil Rights" vs "Religious Liberty"

There's a serious issue today that revolves around the accommodation of both religious beliefs and civil rights, and it's not likely to be resolved any time soon. Here's an example ...

A full-page advertisement* appeared on page A7 of the Washington Post on Sunday, October 16th. It was titled "DECLARATION of DEPENDENCE UPON GOD and HIS HOLY BIBLE" (capitalization in the original), and began with these words,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Since our Creator gave us these rights, we declare that no government has the right to take them away. Among these rights is the right to exercise our Christian beliefs as put forth in God's Holy Bible."

It goes on to specifically oppose abortion**, "... same-sex marriage, polygamy, bestiality, and all other forms of sexual perversion prohibited by Holy Scripture," and closes with this ringing statement:

"Therefore we, the undersigned - not only as Christians but also believing we have the constitutional right as Americans to follow these time honored Christian beliefs - commit to conducting our churches ministries, businesses, and personal lives in accordance with our Christian faith and chose to obey God rather than man."

Translation: those who profess strong, specifically Christian, religious beliefs need not obey the law***.

Here's the dilemma ... citizens of the United States are guaranteed "freedom of religion." But how does unrestricted "freedom of religion" square with community life in a pluralistic society?

My problem with the major monotheistic religions is that they are by nature intolerant of other beliefs. For example, if you are a Christian, you believe absolutely in the literal truth of the Bible, and that unless a person accepts Jesus Christ as his/her lord and savior, that person cannot be saved and is denied entry into heaven. If you are a Muslim, you believe absolutely in the literal truth of the Quran, and that every other form of religious belief is wrong. Neither of these is an especially good recipe for loving your neighbor as yourself^†.

I've been concerned about this for a long time, and a while back saw this superb article in the Atlantic Monthly: Even the Government’s Smartest Lawyers Can’t Figure Out Religious Liberty. It's not too long, and is well worth your time to read, particularly if you believe your constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion is threatened by laws intended to protect those of whom you disapprove on religious grounds.

In case you don't want to read the whole thing, the main point is this: it is all but impossible in our constitutional republic to both guarantee complete freedom of religious expression and protect the civil rights of minorities - particularly those who are frowned upon by one religion or another. The problem will never be resolved by law - only by the good will of men and women willing to pull their heads out of their rigidly religious backsides.

In case you were wondering why I have chosen not to follow any particular system of religious belief, now you know.

Have a good day. Practice the Golden Rule ... you may find you like it.

Come back tomorrow for the unveiling of our Right-Cheek Ass Clown for December. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Paid for by Andrew Wommack Ministries.

** "...unless it is a direct threat to the life of the mother."

*** I'm not sure how this squares with Jesus' admonition in Matthew 22:21 to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's," commonly interpreted to remind believers that they also have an obligation to respect temporal authority. In any case, what the Constitution actually says about "freedom of religion" (in the first words of the First Amendment) is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Seems pretty clear to me.

† As Jesus is reported to have mentioned in Mark 12:31 and Matthew 22:39 as "the second great commandment."

The Things That Matter

One of my favorite songs is a John Denver ditty from back in the 70's called "Late Night Radio," which includes this line -

"I turn the dial a little bit past one-oh-one point two,
In time to catch the news and see who's shootin' who"

Those lines are more relevant now than ever before. What's wrong with our country that these things keep happening?

I think the best explanation of why things are the way they are was written in a 1972 memoir by Dennis Smith. Report from Engine Company 82 describes Smith's experiences - by turns dramatic, funny, and horrifying - as a career firefighter in New York City. Commenting on demonstrators who were pelting his crew with rocks as they tried to fight a fire in a New York slum, he wrote:

"I used to believe that people who threw rocks at firemen were motivated by conditions - the lower depths of American society. I used to believe that the fundamental problems were housing and education ... but I don't believe that anymore ... The disease is much more seriously latent, more pernicious than uncaring landlords, or bureaucratic, apathetic school officials. The malignancy lies in the guts of humankind at all levels. We have unlearned the value of a human life."

There are a lot of "explanations" for why we're stuck in this insane cesspool of violence. It's easy to spread the blame, and commentators from across the political spectrum are busy doing it. Depending on your political persuasion, the fault lies with the ready availability and glorification of powerful weapons, ultraviolent movies and television shows, parents who don't teach their children right from wrong, people who value individual freedom over responsibility to the community, religious and social bigotry, or any of a thousand other excuses. But the real reason is the one Dennis Smith identified more than 40 years ago - we have unlearned the value of a human life.

A human life. Not black or white or asian or hispanic. Human.

And I don't know what else to say.

Have a good day. And be careful. I need you all safe and sound.

More thoughts tomorrow, when we salute the Left Cheek Ass Clown for July.

Bilbo

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, 2015

In the biblical book of Revelation, verses 1 through 8 of Chapter 6 introduce the figures we know today as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Only one of them (Death) is actually named; the others are simply described - War, Famine, and Pestilence.

But the Bible was written more than a thousand years ago, and things change. The traditional Four Horsemen certainly are still with us, but I contend that they are slowly being displaced by the updated Four Horsemen - Vanity, Ignorance, Demagoguery, and Denial.

Vanity is exemplified by self-important celebrities and political figures interested only in their own self-aggrandizement. Many televangelists, and rabble-rousing community leaders like Al Sharpton follow the Horseman of Vanity.

Ignorance is exemplified by those who deny evidence and blindly follow their prejudices. Those who choose to ignore common sense, compassion, morality, and established science in favor of blind religious belief follow the Horseman of Ignorance.

Demagoguery represents political blowhards who rage endlessly and irresponsibly, without regard for the consequences of their ravings. Right-wing TV and radio gasbags like Rush Limbaugh, and irresponsible politicians like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz follow the Horseman of Demagoguery.

Denial is the twin brother of Ignorance, and represents those who blindly follow their chosen beliefs, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, refusing to admit or acknowledge objective reality. Climate change deniers and Second Amendment zealots follow the Horseman of Denial.

America is a free country, although there are those who would play upon our basest instincts and fears in an attempt to take those freedoms away. Nobody will ever take away the hundreds of millions of guns now in the hands of people who take counsel of their worst fears, but our other fundamental freedoms - of speech, peaceful assembly, and religion - are on the block*. We are afraid of the wrong things.

Look around you. Think. And if you're going to follow a horseman, do it at the track.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Look under "p" for Patriot Act.

Bring Back the Cone of Silence!

One of the most annoying things ever invented is the cellular telephone. Oh, I'll grant you that it has its uses ... it's superb for sending text messages, surfing the web, making videos of police activity, shooting selfies, and tracking your workout. It's even useful for making telephone calls, often without regard for the unintended audience of the call.

We've all had the wonderful experience of sitting in a restaurant or an airport waiting area or some other public space and being treated to the loud and often highly personal conversations being carried on by some clueless twits on their cell phones. I believe I've written here before about the very loud and angry conversation I overheard while waiting for a flight at Washington National Airport* ... in which the furious caller was berating the person on the other end for not getting him his desired appointment with his urologist. I have often overheard highly personal calls between lovers emanating from stalls in Pentagon rest rooms. And fellow blogger Kathy ranted on Facebook the other day about an ass clown at Houston Airport who had been talking loudly on his phone for about 30 minutes about his cousin whom he was visiting who was "nuts" and needed immediate commitment as the caller "fear(ed) for his life."**

What is it about cell phones that encourages people to share their most intimate and distressing affairs in public? More importantly, how can we make them stop?

I say we bring back the Cone of Silence.

Some of you may remember the 1960's vintage TV comedy "Get Smart," in which Don Adams played bumbling secret agent Maxwell Smart in a Mel Brooks parody of the secret agent films and TV shows popular at the time. Agent Smart was famous for the telephone hidden in his shoe, and for the famous security device known as the "Cone of Silence." When Smart was meeting with his boss ("The Chief," played by Edward Pratt), he would often call for employment of the Cone of Silence to ensure that their conversation would remain private ...

The problem was that while the Cone of Silence prevented people outside from listening in on the conversation, the people inside couldn't understand each other because of the tremendous echo. There was also a portable version of the Cone of Silence for use outside the headquarters (which suffered from the same problem) ...

I'm thinking that a portable Cone of Silence would be a great thing for people addicted to their cell phones. We could create a special device with a built-in cell phone that people could simply wear when they wanted to make a personal call in public. It might look something like this ...

I'll be the first one to volunteer to bolt it on the head of some publicly-nattering ass clown.

Have a good day. Keep your private calls private.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Sorry, but I refuse to call it "Reagan National" airport. The GOP has already named enough things in the greater DC area after Saint Ronald.

** Adapted from Kathy's somewhat longer and pithier description of the call.