Remembering The Great Desk Caper

In order not to offend the vewy delicate sensibilities of my fellow Americans, I waited until after Memorial Day to post this. 

It was a year or two ago one of my uncles sent me a chain email about honoring veterans. The story and its moral goes something like this [lifted from Snopes.com which designates the story as true]…

Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock, did something not to be forgotten. On the first day of school, with permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she took all of the desks out of the classroom.

The kids came into first period, they walked in, there were no desks. They obviously looked around and said, "Ms. Cothren, where's our desk?" And she said, "You can't have a desk until you tell me how you earn them."

They thought, "Well, maybe it's our grades."

"No," she said. "Maybe it's our behavior."

And she told them, "No, it's not even your behavior."

And so they came and went in the first period, still no desks in the classroom. Second period, same thing. Third period. By early afternoon television news crews had gathered in Ms. Cothren's class to find out about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of the classroom.

The last period of the day, Martha Cothren gathered her class. They were at this time sitting on the floor around the sides of the room. And she says, "Throughout the day no one has really understood how you earn the desks that sit in this classroom ordinarily." She said, "Now I'm going to tell you."
Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it, and as she did 27 U.S. veterans , wearing their uniforms, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. And they placed those school desks in rows, and then they stood along the wall. And by the time they had finished placing those desks, those kids for the first time I think perhaps in their lives understood how they earned those desks.

Martha said, "You don't have to earn those desks. These guys did it for you. They put them out there for you, but it's up to you to sit here responsibly to learn, to be good students and good citizens, because they paid a price for you to have that desk, and don't ever forget it."

Even though I am a veteran – I’m a fucking Renaissance man like that – when I first read this story I laughed pretty hard. I could just imagine myself as a student in that class chiming in – because I’m a dick like that – “Sooooo, because these guys killed people in other countries, some of whom the U.S. are friends with now, I’m expected to be a good student? Isn’t the point of fighting for freedom to give people the option of not giving a shit if someone fought for their freedom?” As a veteran, I have on occasion been slightly offended by people not seeming to care that I fought for their liberties, but then again, that’s exactly one of the liberties they should have precisely because of my service in the military. Moreover, imagine this story taking place in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia or some such. You’d better be a good little Nazi youth officer! These men are out there killing Jews so that you don’t have to earn your desks! Just because so one fights for ideas that you share or benefit from doesn’t mean you should thank them.

Don’t get me wrong (too late) I support standing up for and defending some (very few) ideas but I’m not sure killing is the best way to show that support. (Meanwhile, I am all for defending one’s self with deadly force when one is aggressed.) It’s quite arguable that dropping nukes on Hiroshima AND Nagasaki was necessary and if a strong case can be made for not dropping at least one of those bombs, American veterans of that war are on the hook for the murder of civilians. Oh, that’s right, most soldiers just take orders. Hmm, that didn’t work for the Nazi’s after they lost WWII, did it? But I guess since America always wins we’re just supposed to say, “Team America! Fuck yeah!”

I regard what the teacher did as a waste of the student’s time. If what she wanted to do was instill a sense of respect for veterans in the children, she should have had them campaign the government to show some respect for their veterans’ lives by asking the government not to slash veteran benefits. You think the Average Joe doesn’t show enough respect for veterans? The Average Joe has nothing on the U.S. government that sends mostly-the-poor off to war. Without body armor.

Fortunately, I am a veteran and I can say these things without repercussion since I’ve earned free speech for myself. And just for the record, I sat on the floor and wrote this.

A Clarification or an Apology?

A clarification or an apology? Think of it as one of those choose-your-own-adventure stories…

Regarding the criticism directed towards me for my last blog (in which I defend the business strategy of Abercrombie & Fitch) it has become clear to me that, generally speaking, people place more value in emotions than in analyzing issues with intelligence. This is not to say people who place more value in their emotions are unintelligent, simply that their lives are less governed by reason. In saying so, I suppose it seems obvious that I place less value in reacting emotionally to life’s various situations, preferring to analyze situations before reacting or making decisions. Naturally, it is not always practical to act in this manner, but I generally do so with situations that allow it. As such, I tend to accuse others of being oversensitive, whereas I have been accused of being unsympathetic or lacking empathy towards others. Having taken some time to reflect upon this disconnect, as it were, I found myself asking this question: Is it better to approach life emotionally or with reason (more precisely, with more emotion than reason or with more reason than emotion)? 

On the surface, it may seem that taking the latter approach to life robs a person of the many immediate pleasures any given moment may offer. To a certain extent I agree as there are certainly situations in which it is enjoyable to stop thinking and enjoy the moment. I suspect this is why people place such a high value on emotions. I’ve certainly been told that emotions are what make us human, but hearing this much makes me wonder if the advocates of emotions think we became intelligent (notice I didn’t say reasonable) by accident or as some kind of afterthought. As humans, we are both emotional AND intelligent; the question is whether one of these aspects of our existence should be held in higher regard than the other. 

In thinking about this – since I invest more time reasoning than living emotionally – I’ve come to a conclusion that surprised me. That conclusion came about by reflecting on the state of the world; at any given time in history, even now, the general state of the world has been one of misery, certain perspectives be damned. (Perhaps that is why optimistic people are in such short supply.) So, I thought, what has caused the world to be so miserable? At first I thought that it was because people tend to react to the world without thinking. All of humanity’s worst qualities such as anger, arrogance, bigotry, dominance, entitlement, tribalism – people assume these traits too often before giving the slightest thought as to why they act in the manner they do. Though we do cooperate when it benefits us (when we reason), think of how often we act benevolent with each other when we stand nothing to gain. I’m not saying people never act kind without expecting some kind of reciprocity, it just happens less than when cooperating is more than a zero-sum game. I do not believe people are basically good; given the chance to take advantage of another, more people give into the temptation than not, as several notable experiments have borne out. [e.g. the Stanford prison experiment, the Milgram experiment, etc.]

Next, I began to think about all the good human intelligence has wrought please insert sarcasm here. The advancement of atomic energy came at the behest to weaponize the technology, cars which get us to the restaurant faster so that we can eat a steaks (both contribute to our poisonous atmosphere), genetically modified plants that cannot reproduce on purpose; it would be easy to get carried away here. But when we think of the most recent tech “advancement,” Google Glass, I discovered the common denominator between emotions and intelligence that puts the human race at a disadvantage: People tend to apply emotion and intelligence before applying REASON to life’s myriad of situations. It’s not hard to think of what the unintended consequences of Google Glass might be, but did its inventors stop to think it might do more harm than good? No, I’m sure they automatically assumed the benefits of Google Glass outweigh its possible downside. (That is to say, it’s all about the money.) 

While I said earlier that human beings are both emotional and intelligent – weakly implying that both are important aspects of our existence – I think either on its own without any application of reason has been a bust for humanity. I think it is okay to be emotional…but not without also being reasonable. It is also okay to be intelligent, but not without being reasonable. And so I have discovered that reason trumps both emotion and intelligence. This, I believe, is where much of my dissatisfaction with my opponents in the Mike Jeffries debate came from, my belief that they were being unreasonable which they often took as an attack on intelligence. To be fair, I didn’t make this clear though I’m not sure saying, “I’m not attacking your intelligence, it’s that you’re not being reasonable,” would have helped. Or perhaps it would have if we as a species took the attitude that we need to stop, collaborate, and listen to each other. We need to stop perceiving that disagreements are attacks. We need to think about things before assuming all those ugly human traits I alluded to earlier, myself included.

I suppose it’s up to the individual to be more emotional than reasonable or more reasonable than emotional, but I certainly believe that abandoning reasoning altogether is one of the worst things a person can do not only for themselves, but for the world. I will not apologize for taking umbrage in instances where reason is abandoned when it is needed most. Not now, not ever.

Your Outrage Ain't Pretty

It’s been almost three weeks and a large (ahem) segment of the American population is still not over the business strategy of Abercrombie & Fitch’s CEO. What is Mike Jeffries’ crime? Jeffries is quoted as saying: “ ‘In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.’” (via Huffington Post) Jeffries’ crime is that he said something exclusionary. Neverminding the fact that 99.9% of the population acts exclusionary 99.9% of the time, Jeffries is being punished for actually saying the words.

Before upending the irrationality of Jeffries’ critics, let me be clear that I am also offended by Jeffries’ comments, but for a completely different reason. That is to say, clothes don’t make people cool. A&F clothing may be what beautiful, young, and popular kids are wearing but that doesn’t equal being cool. “Cool” is when someone wear what the fuck they want because they don’t give a fuck what other people think. Cool people don’t try and Jefferies is obviously trying. I am also somewhat puzzled that someone as unattractive as Jeffries would want to cater solely to beautiful people as if making money will conceal his physical unattractiveness. Maybe, but someone’s got issues and it’s not hard to imagine why. But, that amounts to an ad hominem attack which is neither here nor there. Forget I mentioned it.

As mentioned, Jeffries is being lambasted for speaking the words already made implicit by Abercrombie advertisements. Since when did human beings stop investing is symbology? For those offended by Jeffries’ words, they’ve somehow missed the inherent meaning of his company’s ads and it possible that said people are not as smart as they think they are. Oh, but I guess it’s different when one has proof of an Illuminati conspiracy to have beautiful people take over the world. Wait, is this what Jeffries’ critics are angry about, that he has the nerve to think some people aren’t beautiful? Remember how I was neverminding something earlier? Let me do some more neverminding that few people intentionally go looking for a mate that is unattractive to them, meaning, there are individuals who are unattractive. That being the case, I loathe this idea that everyone is beautiful, especially that everyone is beautiful on the outside. That is simply bullshit. 

The idea may be bullshit but that doesn’t mean we should exclude people under the law because of it. That said, Jeffries’ marketing strategy clearly isn’t illegal. However, his critics are acting like he is doing something illegal and I guess he is in the court of public opinion, a court by-the-way that has never had any credibility beyond holding a monkey trial. In the court of public opinion, I guess it’s illegal to exclude what is now the majority of the population from buying your product. Only, wait a second. Should I – as a 5’6” 140lbs man – call for the head of the head of Big & Tall men’s clothing store because they don’t make clothes in my size? Of course not, nor should a skinny woman get indignant about not being able to find clothes that fit in a plus-size woman’s store. What’s really going on here is this: Jeffries’ critics are trying to justify their lifestyle which, not surprisingly, consists of over-consuming calories and not exercising. With being overweight now normal for Americans, that segment of the population wishes to homogenize the overall population to the point that everyone is special until no one is special. I understand not wanting to be discriminated against, but with this attack on Jeffries, America is in actual danger of becoming vanilla, to borrow the man’s word. Nobody will be exciting anymore; we’re not allowed to be! With these attacks on individuality and capitalism, Ayn Rand is surely spinning in her grave. (Author’s note: This is not to say I think either individuality or capitalism are so great, but everyone else sure pays those two ideas some French-kissing lip-service. Or used to.)

If it’s okay to be overweight, if we’re supposed to agree to this notion that it is not okay to judge others, then why isn’t it okay for Jeffries to be a douche? What’s that, we’re still allowed to judge what’s on the inside? Right, right; it’s what’s on the inside that really counts especially when people are afraid to be judged on their outside. That’s why Jeffries is a douche. I completely understand now.

If there’s anything Jeffries is guilty of it is cutting costs for his company by not including larger sizes of clothing anymore and subsequently trying to promote his brand without gauging the weight of his words to an overly-sensitive audience. People are irrational though and Jeffries seemed never to consider that old axiom by the prophet George Carlin, “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” Liberal, conservative, doesn’t matter; stupidity and irrationality does not discriminate. 

Update 5/22/13

The fact that people are attacking me instead of my argument supporting Jeffries’ business practice confirms that both our critics are basing their distain purely upon emotion, no logic involved whatsoever. If what is wrong with Jeffries’ business practice cannot be expressed cogently with words, his critics have no credibility. If his critics are his critics based on some kind of gut-feeling, then the same people have no business being offended by anyone who discriminates based on a gut-feeling. For example, if someone is a homophobe based upon some gut-feeling that homosexuality is wrong, that person is a douche, right? Problem is, anyone who levels a criticism based solely upon emotion is still a douche. Sure, Jeffries may be a douche but his critics – who can’t logically explain why they are angry – are then douches as well. This is exactly why appeals to emotion do not trump rationality when examining at what Jeffries said about his business. If I lack sympathy for Jeffries critics’ point-of-view, it’s mostly because whatever bizarre logic they’ve based their anger on is inconsistent. If one is going to be indignant about the business practices of A&F, I demand of those people that there be outrage at other businesses who dare target a demographic. 

Now, if I’m wrong that Jeffries’ critics are just trying to justify their own lifestyle, then what point are they trying to make, that no one should ever discriminate? Well, I’ve already blown that assertion to smithereens and haven’t heard a remotely intelligent rebuttal, probably because there is none. Maybe it is the case that people feel as though this is really about bullying? I’m asking because I did see this comment made on one message board and I am baffled as to how Jeffries’ words can be construed as bullying. If it is a case of bullying, isn’t bullying A&F with protests and boycotts just as wrong? Oh well, you can’t tell people who react to the world emotionally that two wrong STILL don’t make a right.