Skip to content

Alien Life

Alien Life

by Marco M. Pardi

Another circumstance tormented me in those days: that no one resembled me and that I resembled no one else. ‘I am alone and they are every one,’ I thought – and pondered.” Fyodor Dostoyevsky. 1821-1881. Notes from the underground. 1864.

All comments are greatly appreciated and will receive a response.

When Armstrong stepped onto the Moon it was indeed a “great leap for Mankind.” Apparently, it was also a great leap for social science. A few years after that historic landing I was attending yet another national social science conference where I was a featured speaker. Looking at the Program for other talks I might find interesting I saw one to be presented by a well known sociologist who, for this event anyway, billed himself as an “Exo-Sociologist” I wondered, What in the world is that? (I couldn’t resist that) Unfortunately, our presentations were concurrent so I missed his. But, having wrestled with the linguistics issue of communicating with off-world visitors I long since wondered how anyone could seriously propose an ethnology/ethnography of an off-world species, especially one capable of visiting us.

Of course, the interest in such adventures was nothing new. Science fiction from the 1940’s onward was dominated by imaginative literature characterizing alien civilizations, usually as a means of highlighting faults in our own. In the ’50’s I was a fan of Flash Gordon, usually sympathizing with the Emperor Ming over Gordon and his mundane companions. The film industry was not far behind, usually depicting aliens as creatures far too clumsy and brutish to have developed, much less piloted inter-stellar craft.

Respectable” literature also got in on the action. Life Magazine and its competitors occasionally published articles on “alien life” heavily illustrated with “artists’ renderings” of what we might encounter on other planets. No matter the renderings looked like Aubrey Beardsley met H. P. Lovecraft. They were there to sell magazines. One evening when I was at dinner with the heir to the Coles Newspaper Empire, including Look Magazine (his young bride was a friend of mine), I asked about their coverage. “It sells”.

More recently we are treated to ongoing television series such as Ancient Aliens, proposing that Humanity arose not through Natural Selection among higher Primates, but from deliberate manipulation of Primate genes by highly advanced space visitors. These programs take advantage of a fundamental principle in logic: Proving something didn’t happen is usually far more difficult than proving something did. Therefore, the shows continually pose ideas in the form of questions, not factual statements, and answer their own questions with “researchers think so”. The term “researcher” is presumed to carry infallibility among us pedestrians.

I am not at all against the idea that alien life exists. In fact, I think the conceit that our planet’s life forms are the only ones in the universe is untenable. But then, what of these other forms? For too long we assumed that life elsewhere had to model life here. This meant presumptively ruling out planets without environments which match ours. Then we began to discover the life forms we never thought possible, extremophiles which exist here in abundance in places so toxic, or so hot, or so cold as to almost instantly kill the life forms we see daily around us. We are only now aware of the thick bacterial blanket surrounding the Earth in the highest reaches of the atmosphere.

But skeptics would challenge the presence of intelligence within these species, holding fast to the self awarded title Homo sapiens – Man the wise. Yet even our definition of intelligence, and who or what can or cannot have it is changing. I have earlier written that Ray Kurzweil, a leader in the growing A.I. – Artificial Intelligence — movement, told us years ago the Singularity, the threshold beyond which no human mind can refute or verify a conclusion reached by a computer, is near. I would say, for me it’s already here. And I’m just using a desktop.

The growing awareness of A.I. has given new strength to the decades old position that life can also be silicon based, not just carbon based as we have known it. I’ve known several women who were largely silicone based, though I don’t think that’s what A.I. science had in mind. At least two of these women suffered bilateral implant encapsulation. The tissue surrounding the implants seized and hardened, leaving them looking like the front bumpers on a 1950’s Cadillac, and feeling the same way. Did I say, largely? When the poor dears tried sleeping face down their heads swung freely.

The issue re-surfacing with A.I. is that for all our scientific history we have been married to the idea of evolution as biological, and biological as carbon based. Now, as we go through our daily routines wearing Smartwatches with more computing power than the massive computer banks which sent Armstrong to the Moon, we are forced to reevaluate our concept of intelligence and who or what can carry it. Yes, computers can replicate themselves, and have been able to for years: Reproduction? Yes, computers can take in new information and purge outdated or useless information: Respiration? And now computers can process information and produce never before seen outcomes: Creativity? We are seeing the ability of computers to produce “offspring” which can exceed the parent generation’s capabilities on the order of several magnitudes: Evolution?

Again, the skeptics speak up saying these acts are not acts of volition; there is no personhood devising and driving them. Unsaid, however, is the unresolved issue of what constitutes personhood. No one has yet explained consciousness. And only a fool takes the road marked Free Will. Quantum computers already exist, leaving us to guess at their motivation just as we look at someone’s actions and joke about the “Darwin Awards”.

In one of his recent books the physicist Michio Kaku proposed a series of graduated stages for the development of intelligent life capable of inter-stellar travel and therefore contact with us. Of course, the existence of life forms with such intelligence and the willingness to visit us do not necessarily go together. But, to be kind, let’s assume for the moment some such adventurers, on a Jurassic Park like vacation, do visit us. I suspect they would view us much as we view roaches: an example of evolutionary success but with the built in limitations attendant upon being the most self-destructive species while at the same time being the Apex Parasite on the planet. Our attempt to develop an ethnology/ethnography of our visitors would parallel a roach’s attempt to understand why we stomped it.

Does intelligence have to appear in a human form for us to accept it as intelligence? Apparently. We still are taught that humans stand apart from “dumb animals”. I’ve written much on that so will not reprise it here. By the way, if the reader falls back on “dumb” as meaning without speech I would point to the recent decades of realization that many other species of non-humans, even plants, have sophisticated communications systems even at dialectical levels. It’s we who have long been too dumb to perceive them.

Does intelligence have to have feelings in order to function? Can a purely intelligent being act in ethical ways, or are ethics the expressions of loosely defined sentiments?

But here’s an open secret. Open because it’s all around us and always has been. Secret because even though in plain sight many people neither see nor understand it. Alien life is all around us. This is increasingly apparent since the rise of “populism”, the old wine in new bottles, to twist a saying. It is the world wide rise of Fascism disguised as what the people want. In the 1950’s a popular tobacco advertising theme was something like “100.000 people can’t be wrong”. Eventually, we came to realize 100,000 people can be wrong.

Especially in the recent United States, but also spreading through Europe human societies are fracturing into competing tribes. Adjust the focal length of the microscope and see that this phenomenon extends down to the familial level as well. Americans remembered the Civil War as “brother against brother” and swore to never let it happen again. I’m not asking for a show of hands, but I’m guessing some readers have found themselves in never-before-so-tense familial gatherings over the recent holidays, if they attended those gatherings at all. And so we now look at each other and see carbon based biological units in human form, therefore presumably intelligent, and wonder if this other thinks and feels like us, or is so unintelligent as to value all those things we know to be absolutely and fundamentally wrong.

My gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.”¹

Is this the statement of an intelligent being? 

Talking recently with someone who frequently visits along the U.S./Mexican border they cited an area in the U.S. and said it was full of illegal aliens. I asked, “How do you know they are illegal? By their looks?” No answer.

Well, Dear Reader, I hope you have been stimulated to comment. Now I need to step into the bathroom and comment to the alien life in the mirror. In the immortal words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

1. The gut quote above is by Donald Trump. But, you knew that.


Some Lessons Learned

Some Lessons Learned

by Marco M. Pardi

Learn from others what to pursue and what to

avoid, and let your teachers be the lives of others.” Dionysius Cato. 4th Cent C.E.

Disticha de moribus ad filium.

All comments are welcome and will receive a reply.

My calendar tells me another year is drawing to a close. I suppose I should look back and consider what, if anything, I’ve done.

Anyone who opens this blog site sees the column on the right listing all my previous entries. 176 of them. Going back to February of 2013. All still open for comment. I’ve written about things from mysticism to college teaching, ecology to politics, gun control to what to bring to a gun fight. I’ve even included some non-fiction fiction. I haven’t calculated the monthly average, but I do find myself slowing down over the past few months. It’s not age, despite the calendar. Nor is it lack of ideas.

When I started this blog I set up my site with WordPress as a free account. Even at that level I was provided with a multitude of data such as how many hits were received each day and from where they were generated (one has to just presume a hit meant that someone went ahead and actually read what was on offer). A couple of my offerings were hit in over 100 countries; they then stabilized at around 75 for quite some time. At no time have I ever had the identity of a reader, unless that person was kind enough to comment. Among the large offerings of data provided by this site I was also able to see how many followers I had. That number has steadily grown quite large. And so, to provide a better service to those followers I upgraded to a paid platform. I derive no income from this site, what you see is purely at my expense.

The site also allows me to automatically delete spam, or to see it in case an errant comment ends up there (that has happened). Interestingly, the ratio to spam to bona fide comments is roughly 100 to 1. I manually review and clean off up to a dozen spam comments daily.

In the early years I could count on several people to regularly comment. In responding to each one I have often expressed my deep appreciation for their efforts. In fact, I set up this blog for the comments, not for a mere platform to broadcast my views. I learned as a child that learning comes through listening, not through one way monologue. And the best lessons issue from dialogue. For me, life is learning. And, it is sharing that learning.

Yet, the number of “reads” far outweighed the number of comments. I admit I can be somewhat oblique at times, but I doubt my readers have to go back and re-read six or eight times before providing a comment. I also noticed that many of the “reads” came from guests, people not signed on as followers and apparently the recipients of forwarding through other media platforms.

The enhanced platform I purchased does some inspiring statistical analyses of the data it gathers. Looking at these I noticed cycles in the silent reader hits. In addition, and in parallel to a career in medical science I also taught college for twenty two years. The cycles of highest activity in the readership of the blog appeared to closely parallel those cycles within academic semesters when papers are due. These papers range from basic “position” papers to admission essays. They do not necessarily expound on subject matter intimately germane to any given academic course or subject. Thus, with a little editing, several of my blog entries could be submitted as original work by anyone.

And, not long after I noticed this association of reader cycles with academic requirements I began receiving solicitations from several companies asking to hire my services in writing papers they could then sell to students. Even had I never been in a teaching position I would have found this practice an appalling example of cheating. Yet, I know it happens on a large scale. As a professional dedicated to integrity in learning, I was inspired to vomit. But, although keyboards are cheap, I thought better of it.

I’ve seen several examples of cheating, some crude and some grand. I became bored at one small college where I was teaching and decided to do a research project very much like a marketing study for the college. The administration approved my protocol and I enlisted a couple of student volunteers to administer questionnaires to upper level high school students throughout the large County, soliciting their post high school educational preferences and their reasons for those preferences. After four months of data gathering and four weeks of data collation and analysis I wrote up an extensive paper, complete with recommendations to the college, and presented it in an administrative forum.

The paper was enthusiastically received and the college immediately embarked upon implementation of my recommendations, spending several thousand dollars in the process. The paper was published by and archived at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). I received Tenure the following year.

A year later the Dean of Instruction called me into his office. He asked me if I had read the Dissertation which had just won a Doctorate in Education, from one of the State Universities, for one of our administrative staff. I answered in the negative and was handed a copy. It was my paper from two years previously, with the title slightly changed and the administrator’s name in place of mine. All the rest was as I wrote it.

Getting over my shock I asked if, since the college had to now pay this person at a higher level, there would be any action taken to expose this. He said No. The inter-collegiate agreements in the State, regarding such things as transfer students, would be jeopardized if one school exposed another for wrong doing. If we refused to honor a degree from another university they could retaliate against our students. Sound baffling? I thought so.

The next year I had yet another administrative staff member in one of my classes; tuition was free for them. At the mid-term exam I wrote essay questions on the board, to be answered in writing in class. I noticed this staff person was visibly disturbed. When I reviewed the papers later in my office I found why. The person had written impeccable answers: To questions from a different course I was teaching. The answers, to questions from the Introductory Anthropology course, were submitted to the test for the Cultural Anthropology course. I gave the person a ZERO for the test. I did not dismiss the student from the class as I had a right to. At the end of the term the person had brought his/her grade up to a D. This person had a straight A GPA on all courses up to that point, and since the college was using the No-Grade instead of an F the person came to my office and asked me to change the grade to a No-Grade, thus not affecting the GPA. I refused, saying that were I to do so I would be complicit in cheating. My Division Chairman advised me to hold onto the mid-term test. I locked it, along with another student’s proper test paper, in my home safe.

Almost exactly one year later I was summoned to the Dean of Instruction’s office. That person who had cheated had filed a Federal Civil Rights suit claiming, along with other charges, I had acted out of racial prejudice. The case was to be heard in Federal District Court.

In the preliminary hearing I presented the test in question, next to the test from the non-cheating student. I also presented the test questions for each of the two courses at issue. The case was immediately thrown out of court. One can only wonder at the outcome had I not heeded my Division Chairman’s advice. But these are only two of many examples I can cite of cheating, some far worse.

Overall, I feel there was very little cheating going on in my classes. And, the classes were participatory to the extent the volume of material allowed. Of course, through the years of mostly lecture based teaching I have had innumerable instances in which the class ran to the hour with little or no movement from the students to ask questions or rebut a point. I understand that. But over the course of a semester there have rarely been students who have not participated in some way.

And so, Dear Reader, as you recover from your holiday spirit – or spirits, as the case may be, you may understand why, in the face of large amounts of “reads” and low amounts of Comments I’m spending this Season of Giving finishing this 177th offering and considering my options. Before the next billing cycle I can shut down this site completely. Or, I can leave it open to float, perhaps dropping back to the Free level while I find more productive ways to use my time. Or, I can examine the list of Followers and trim off the ones from whom I never read anything. Some of them might appreciate no longer receiving email notification that a new gift is under the tree.

I’m reminded of the aphorism, Use it or lose it. If I knew who coined that I would certainly give her/him full credit. Anyway, I would like to know your thoughts even if they are captured in a single word. In our modern world of truncated communication that shouldn’t be out of the ordinary.

Happy Holidays.



by Marco M. Pardi

Nationalism appeals to our tribal instincts, to passion and to prejudice, and to our nostalgic desire to be relieved from the strains of individual responsibility which it attempts to replace by a collective or group responsibility.” Karl R. Popper (1902-1994) The Open Society and its Enemies. 1945

All comments are sincerely welcome and will receive a reply.

Having learned American as a second language and having seriously studied several other languages I’m perhaps unusually attuned to the way people speak. That can be problematic when hearing common usage. I do hear terms used interchangeably that should not be so used. A common example is Nation and State. For clarity, some choose Country in lieu of State but the meaning is unchanged.

Having no geographic boundaries, a nation is a collection of people defined by a self-perceived solidarity. Here in the United States we have excellent examples in “the Cherokee Nation” and other such applications. The concept has been borrowed informally by sports fans as the Bulldog Nation (University of Georgia) and the Gator Nation (University of Florida). Interestingly, fans of the New Orleans Saints football team proudly refer to themselves as the “Who Dat Nation”. In another context, this would be a slur against an ethnic group.

This felt solidarity applies no matter where the member happens to live. And, presumably students at those universities who have no interest in sports still attend school in good standing but do not necessarily subscribe to membership in such “Nations”.

The U.S. birthed another excellent example in the Nation of Islam, insightfully applying the Muslim concept of the Umma, or worldwide body of Islam to the Black converts in the U.S. Nation, then, is bounded by feeling or, in some cases – Native Americans – biology. But in contrast, State (more commonly called Country) is geographically bounded. The surprising catch here is that a country may be totally empty of people but it remains a country; it does not disappear from the map until other countries move in and lay claim.

So, it must be clear that when a person claims to be a “Nationalist” he is referring to group of people bonded by an agreed ethic. Supporting factors, such as biology may be invoked to claim or prove membership but the claim to nationalism clearly does not reference a bounded patch of land, empty or full.

The questions must arise: What groups of people? What are the ethics which bond them? How did these ethics originate, and how long have they been there? This raises a current issue: Many writers have claimed the Trump regime has fractured the people of the United States into ever hardening opposing groups. However, it can as easily be said the regime, through its constant voicing of hateful messaging, has only facilitated the exposure of a long fractured population. People who have long concealed their true sentiments now feel free, with official sanction, to voice and to act out those sentiments.

An interesting entry point into analysis is the phenomenon of gangs. True gangs are organized similarly to governments. “Nations” are similar to States; “Sets” are similar to large cities; and, “sub-sets” are similar to counties. However, in Georgia alone there are over 700 groups considered to be gangs. From a criminology perspective one must look more closely within this large number to determine which and how many are simply “robbing crews”, held together by task oriented organic function versus some shared felt ethic. Furthermore, one must question the authenticity and the degree of claimed ethic based cohesion within any such group designated as a gang. A more subtle confounder is the strong position that a gang is often a surrogate family. So which ethic takes precedence, the felt need for a family or the felt need to identify as being in solidarity with the stated aims of the gang. Is the primary personal ethic driven by what a gang is, or by what a gang does? And so, are political parties and special interest groups primarily extended families, or are they solely expressions of principle? I have written previously of a several month on-site study I did with “Black Militant” gangs and will not reprise that episode here. The purpose of my study was to test the validity of Qualitative Methods, not to develop an ethnography on gangs.

Nonetheless, that study supported my growing conviction that Culture is an approximation. We share ideas, values, and traditions only on superficial levels. The common ethic is not so much Our Ethic as much as it is The Ethic to which we pay lip service in ways currently approved. That is, until we discover ourselves in an overarching social milieu which seems to allow us to voice and to act upon our deepest personal feelings. For many hitherto silent and “agreeable” people that milieu is now here. They will soon find that the definition of Freedom of Speech has drifted almost completely into the hands of the current regime. The regime’s focus is not on developing more freedom through which to express one’s self but rather on implanting those “deepest personal feelings” mentioned above. A substantial portion of the population has already proven the regime needs only the most simple minded messaging in order to succeed.

So, are we really fracturing, or are we simply dropping the pretense? Were we ever a Nation, or were we just getting along?

Much current rhetoric stresses the need for the “nation to heal”. But that simple phrase embodies two presumptions: We are a nation; and, we are now fractured where once we were whole. I strongly dispute both. We are not, and have never been a nation. We are not fractured, we are exposed for what we are. Attempts to paper over this reality will worsen the issue, not resolve it.

There are several persistent myths about the origins of the United States. One is that the original northern European colonists were uniformly of a certain body of ethics, a nascent nation. In fact, there were long periods during which being Catholic in some colonies was a hanging offense. Being Baptist was in others. A large number of colonists rejected the secession from England; they did not all leave after the secession was successful.

And, lest we “fergit”, the United States suffered a massive civil war. Living in the South, I constantly see examples of violent protests against the removal of monuments commemorating the people who fought and killed to preserve human slavery. The Confederate Battle Flag is, in my opinion, tantamount to a gang sign.

Until Viet Nam, the United States glorified its wars. Yet, there were many who refused to support each of the preceding wars, often suffering discrimination in employment as the price of upholding their principles, their ethics.

Looking at just these few examples, (no doubt the reader can add many more) claiming the United States is a Nation is absurd. The United States is a huge reservoir of untapped and often seriously conflicting feelings, beliefs and ideals. Proclaiming one’s self a “Nationalist” demands an answer to the fundamental question: Whose Nation?

I’ve asked several questions in this particular piece. I don’t write because I know everything; I write in hopes of learning from the comments and views of others. Maybe that makes me a member of the Eager to Know Nation. Judging from the numbers and the locations of readers, that Nation has no boundaries.

Jinba Ittai

Jinba Ittai

by Marco M. Pardi

Japanese: A Zen concept meaning “Rider and horse oneness”.

All comments are welcomed and will receive a reply.

Riding my horses without tack of any kind, no halter, bit and reins, or saddle I often experienced jinba ittai. Our muscles flexed together, we shared the slight jolts of feet pounding the turf, and we turned as one. I was the rider, and was not. I was the horse, and was not. We were one. I wonder if this is where the myth of the Centaur arose.

I experienced a similar oneness while deep into sports car racing, particularly when under the terrific G forces developed in tight cornering and blasting acceleration or braking.

It is easy and pleasurable to look at those moments as utterly free of outside distracting thoughts. This is what athletes call, “Being in the zone”. The Buddhist concept of Mindfulness comes very close to this. And, in the world we currently live in this siren call beckons ever more insistently. The message of the ’60’s come back, “Tune in, drop out”. But, to borrow a lyric, Where have all the flowers gone? For example, Abbie Hoffman, the most famous member of the Chicago Eight, became a Wall Street stock broker. Oh.

Many of us think it is possible to live continuously in a state of jinba ittai, riding through life in harmony with all our surroundings. But for most it is continuously out of reach; we inadvertently kick the beach ball just as we are reaching for it. For too many the answer is to drop out, to do drugs, to turn off the news, to “not talk about ‘forbidden’ issues”. I do not personally know any drug addicts – excepting alcohol, and even those are only two or three. Sitting here now I can think of several drinkers who put themselves in the grave. In my work life I saw many hard drug addicts, and I suspect most or all are long dead.

I know a few families, most with young children, who do not allow the children to watch the broadcast news. In effect, the news simply goes unwatched in the household. I sympathize with that to a point. Our local news most often begins with today’s body count of people shot, stabbed, beaten, or car jacked in Atlanta. The national news usually starts with the daily lies, insults, and fear mongering from the uncouth oaf presently in the White House. And I can relate, albeit in a small way, to the potential damage done by undeveloped comments on the news. Around 1980 there was considerable talk of “peak oil”, the idea that we had discovered all the oil there was and, at the current usage rate, would run out in the foreseeable future. Discussing this with my daughter, who then was a few years from a driver’s license, I commented, There might be little or no gasoline by the time you get a license. I later got an earful from her mother; my casual comment had a profound and difficult effect.

I did not fully realize it then, but I was seriously ill equipped to converse with very young people. Yet, I did not dread the probability of one day having “the talk”. You know, the one about sex and sexuality. But it has only been in recent years that I have become aware of another talk: The talk Black parents have with their sons, and even their daughters, about encountering the police, especially while driving. The ongoing news coverage of such encounters prods a parent to counsel the child: Put your hands in plain sight, do not resist, do not assert your rights, say “Yes sir” and “No sir”, and go along with what is demanded. Abject surrender.

While I was able to correct and clarify my statement to my daughter, returning her to a hopeful future of driving her own car one day, I must wonder at the lasting effect “the talk” has on the Black kids as they wander into the greater social arena. Will they ever be able to drive, or even congregate where police may pass by without a deeply unsettling expectation that if they are not stopped and frisked this time they will be next time?

Years ago I interviewed a young man (White) who was a habitual shop-lifter. I asked him why he did it. “I’ll be accused of it anyway”, he replied. I had neither the time nor the inclination to delve more deeply into why he thought this, but it seemed to me he had accepted some negative labeling of himself and was living a self fulfilling prophecy. The police are viewed as our protectors, even our friends. But does having “the talk” with Black youth influence them to see themselves as somehow being irremediably at fault, predestined to live as a suspect, a potential criminal?

I sometimes get advertising literature mailed to me in Spanish. I have no problem reading Spanish, but I’m not Spanish. Apparently some people can’t distinguish an Italian name from a Spanish name. (I did once get a credit card application in Italian. I was so impressed I almost applied.)

So I’m wondering what will happen as I soon go to vote, as I have done every time for many years. Will I be scrutinized? Will I be required to “show your papers”? Will I be turned away? To make it worse, I live in Georgia where the Republican candidate for Governor also happens to be the Secretary of State – in charge of voting. He has already disenfranchised over one million primarily minority voters from the rolls. Am I his next target?

There can be no pretending that people do not become very aware of the societal presumptions held about themselves. Even something as trivial as the characteristics ascribed to people born in certain months has great influence on the self perception of many people. In fact, many sociological studies as early as the late 1950’s illuminated the internalization of these presumptions by each group studied.

Looking at more serious societal issues, a well known phenomenon of the 1950’s – 1960’s was labeled “Black Psychosis”, the internalization by Blacks of physical characteristics held in low esteem by Whites and held against fellow Blacks and even themselves. Hair straighteners, skin lightener products and other “corrective” measures were in high demand. I personally documented the destructive application of physical stereotyping of Black children by Black teachers and school administrators during a year long on-site study I conducted in inner city schools. As early as first grade, children’s academic/social success probability was ranked by their Black teachers largely on their physical characteristics such as nose width, lip eversion, skin hue, and “kinked” or straight hair. The ranking then determined the degree to which the teacher bothered to teach them and work with them in class. My publication, Academic Rank and Self-Esteem in Black Inner City Schools was only one of many books on the subject in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s. Although stocked in university libraries across the country, it never made it to press in the public domain. I was, however, gratified by seeing a sudden proliferation of “Black is Beautiful” posters, a powerful reaction to this judgmental trend, springing up across the Black neighborhoods I studied. (I didn’t know it then, but “Gay Pride” would not be long in following.) But this gratification did little in the face of my reality. I’ve long said that there is a fine line between Realism and Depression. That year I spent on site was excruciatingly depressing.

So, who is next? The uncouth lout currently in the Oval Office recently affirmed to us that he is a “Nationalist”. The sane media, whom he calls “the enemy of the people”, points out that this term is best known among Americans when preceded by “White”. I would go further and recall the dominant message of the German dictatorship under Hitler: Teutonic, Master Race, National Socialist Party (the use of socialist was a clever ploy which only gave the appearance of an internal egalitarianism). The shocking rise in Hate Crimes in the U.S. must certainly elucidate the true nature of the current power structure: Divide and Conquer. Create an enemy, an “other”, from whom the “good people”, the righteous nationalists, can be saved only by complete obedience to the leader. We, as a people, are strongly encouraged to fracture ourselves into diverse, and even opposing camps, accepting and enforcing qualitative differences.

Some of you readers are grandparents, some are now parents, and some have yet to take that step. In a climate wherein a child is molded into a category and formed to see “others” as superior or inferior, how do you guide the child toward Jinba Ittai? Or do you encourage the suppression of perception? Do you limit the child’s exposure to the news, or do you engage the child in discussion about the news?

Some liken these times to watching a slow motion train wreck, knowing what is coming but unable to tear one’s eyes away. I keep hearing the words of Voltaire’s Dr. Pangloss, “We live in the best of all possible worlds” as I observe people around me trying to ignore or rationalize the violence and chaos being used around us to weaken our solidarity. Is it true that Ignorance is Bliss? I don’t think so. My horses have gone on before me. They lived their lives of learning and teaching within the limits of their species. I find myself wondering if I am still riding, and if so, what am I riding? Is it selfish to seek the bliss of understanding in the face of chaos? Can the state of understanding be my Jinba Ittai?

Sexual Assault


by Marco M. Pardi

Woman is condemned to a system under which the lawful rapes exceed the unlawful cases a million to one.” Margaret Sanger. Woman and the New Race. 1920

It’s like the weather. If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.” Clayton Williams. Texas Republican Gubernatorial Candidate commenting on rape. 1990.

All comments are sincerely appreciated and will receive a response.


I’ve often said that when a person sits down to write about something it should be something he or she knows. I know about sexual assault, including rape, as a phenomenon. I know it occurs. I know it is almost always not sexual but rather an aggressive act of domination, including rape as an act against civilians in war. But I can’t put myself into the mindset of a rapist, or a person forcefully or even surreptitiously violating a woman’s private space. For that matter, I also can’t find the mindset of someone who uses prostitutes. I am certain I would be non-functional in either case.

The Me Too movement has gained explosive traction, as well it should. I confess to moments of memory search; am I deserving of accusation for some long ago act. Not only have I not found any (and I’m quick to find self-blame), I found myself revisiting a number of instances in which I was used, conned, and/or betrayed by women one would “bring home to meet the parents”. No matter. They have long been someone else’s problem. But having a daughter and two granddaughters (I know I seem to be leaving out my grandson but he’s no one to mess with) I feel even more strongly than I always have about sexual violation. For those who don’t know me, that’s saying a lot.

So, here’s another thing I’m certain of. I could never have been an investigator assigned to “kiddie porn” cases. For one thing I could not look at images to gather the evidence to bring a case. For another thing I’m pretty sure it would not have been long before I gathered locating, travel habits, etc. on a trafficker or perpetrator and quietly did a “Star Chamber” on him myself. The same goes for makers of “crush videos”, of small animals being stomped to death. My preferred therapy for the aforementioned perpetrators is to feed them feet first into an industrial wood chipper.

I’m aware of the clinical interpretations of pedophilia and the therapeutic models commonly in use. But I have never had confidence in therapies for this condition, even chemical castration. And the recidivism rate is so high I cannot justify release, no matter the time served or the therapies used. If I told you there was a 4 in 10 chance of a released pedophile living nearby coming after your child would you accept their release? Okay, 2 in 10? 1 in 10? If life imprisonment is not a satisfactory answer, perhaps a .22 Magnum hollow point to the base of the skull would put the issue to rest.

Speaking of which, during my first field assignment with the Centers for Disease Control I interviewed over a two year period literally thousands of STD (often now called STI) patients to elicit their sex contacts. Not much time passes before the interviews tend to sound alike. But I remember one to this day.

A man in his late twenties presented with co-incident syphilis and gonorrhea infections. At the time, what else he may have had was beyond our testing. As I was eliciting his contacts, prior to giving him his medications, he told me he was a cab driver for one of the several small cab companies in the city. He did not know his contacts because he routinely would cruise by bus stops and, when he saw a girl he fancied, would stop and ask her where she was going. Once he got that information he told her (them) he was on his way to pick up a fare “right near there” and she could ride with him for free. Once the girl was in the car he would quickly go in the general direction but would turn and drive a long way away from where the girl wanted to go. Spotting the rear of a strip mall or some other obscured place he would pull in and stop then tell the girl she could either provide a sexual service for him or she could get out and walk.

If true, and his story was consistent through several repetitions (by this time I had learned how to appear chummy and even envious of sexual “conquests” in order to elicit more contacts to be found and treated) I firmly concluded he was a sexual predator and indeed a serial rapist.

After his medication he apparently felt so admired that he gave me a card with his phone number should I need a cab ride “anytime”. I held on to that and I often considered calling him late one night to pick me up somewhere and then taking him “out of service”…… permanently. Of course, I never did that. But the fantasy was pleasing. And, without a victim, one of the girls, to press charges there was no point in notifying the police.

But, as we’ve recently been reminded, sexual assault is probably the least reported crime in America today. The men who have, and still are criticizing Dr. Ford for not coming forward years ago are either stunningly ignorant or are counting on the ignorance of others. So why do the victims not come forward? I certainly can’t say I know all the reasons, but apparently chief among them is fear of being disbelieved. Along with this is our cultural habit of victimizing the person further by interrogating him or her about their entire sexual history, leading to shaming and ostracism from family and friends. Even today there are people who say, “She invited it” by her choice of clothing.

However, if there is merit – and I think there is – in the position that rape/sexual assault is a crime of domination, not overwhelming sexual urge, then clothing has absolutely nothing to do with it. In twenty two years of teaching college, especially in the warm South, I saw some rather amazing ensembles…or parts of ensembles. Never once did it cross my mind that the young woman was trolling for sex.

To me, sexual assault, the forcing of sex or a sexual contact of some sort on another person is an act of aggression having more to do with the category fixed in the mind of the perpetrator: Woman, or child (male or female) = Victim. I find it obvious that the “treatment” or “therapy” must first be to render the perpetrator utterly and permanently incapable of further aggression. And, given the rate of success with current therapies, I lean strongly toward the position that anything short of rendering the perpetrator permanently incapable will not work.

What do you think?





by Marco M. Pardi

Think what you do when you run in Debt; You give to another Power over your Liberty.” Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) “The Way to Wealth”. 1757

All comments are welcome and will receive a response.

In the interest of transparency I will say I came from a family which did not incur debt, for anything. We wanted a house, we bought it. We wanted a car, we bought it. We wanted an education, we either bought it or won highly competitive full academic scholarships. Loans were viewed as shameful.

What I now view as shameful, however, is a society which calls itself democratic and innovative yet fails to invest in the human resources which make democratic choices and devise beneficial innovations. I am referring particularly to the national scandal of Student Debt.

As regular readers of my column know, for over 22 years – 7 of which tenured – I taught full or part time in Ivy League universities, community colleges, public and private colleges and universities. To this day I am in contact with former students, from even the earliest years. I am quite aware of the seemingly endless debt some have incurred.

In fact, I was aware of that debt even in my earliest teaching years. Having no control over tuition and fees, I did in several cases have some control over textbook selection. Occasionally, there were issues beside cost. For one subject I could find no suitable textbooks so I wrote and published two of my own. Much to my surprise I found out the 10% of the wholesale I received as author and/or editor was eclipsed by the 20% of retail – after mark-up – collected by the college bookstore.

I also heard many students object to the price of books. So, since I knew my subjects inside and out I decided to try teaching without textbooks. That worked for a relative few, but the majority voted for having some kind of book to reference. Okay. I suggested they get used recent edition books, from other students and not from the bookstore. In the years since the internet I suggested on line resources for used books (of recent edition) and made sure everyone had received a book before launching into materials for which they may need resource back-up. That helped somewhat. But that applied only to my courses in a large institution; I do not know how far word of mouth carried to other instructors to inspire them to do the same. But still, outrageous as book costs were, they were minor in comparison to tuition and fees. I fact, a college education has long been known as the most expensive thing you will buy that comes with no warranty; there is no guarantee you will become employed at a level which allows you to pay off the cost of acquisition.

The problem of student debt does not occur in a vacuum. Many students enter college with only vague or uninformed notions of what they want to major in and what that degree will afford them. Part time jobs during high school do not usually illuminate a career path. And, increasingly, success in high school does not reliably predict success in college, or in the world of full time employment. Even the highest Grade Point Average tells me only that the person is smart; it does not tell me whether the person is intelligent. Succeeding in high school is like mastering the game of Ping Pong; the instructor serves, the student returns. The intelligent student, assuming he does not get distracted or even jaded, understands the cultural event of the game in a holistic fashion even if he does miss a shot or two – or more. But our system does not reward intelligence as it does smartness. We overwhelmingly send the smart ones to college, not realizing they will often not be ready upon graduation for exposure to a multidimensional workplace. I gave up counting the number of times I optimistically strayed while teaching a college class into what I felt was intelligent territory only to hear students ask, “Will this be on the test?” I mockingly repeated to myself the Pharaoh’s line from The Ten Commandments: “So it is said, so shall it be written!”

One of the causes gaining traction today is Free College Education. European colleges are often referenced. Indeed, at this writing there are 44 tuition free universities, many quite excellent, throughout Europe. But many, if not most, have stiff entry requirements calculated to appraise the intelligence, not just the smartness, of prospective students. Secondary school students are evaluated either steered toward university or toward technical/trade schools. Some universities not only waive all costs, they also pay a stipend. My sister (now deceased) got her B.F.A at Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland at no cost. She was then awarded a State Scholarship by the Moscow State University (“Russia’s Harvard”) where she earned her M.F.A., with a small apartment and allowance paid for by the Soviet Union. It also happens here. My brother earned his B.S. Degree at the United States Military Academy at West Point with free tuition, room and board, and a monthly salary. His four years there applied toward his military retirement though after completing his contractual service he could have resigned his commission at any time.

So what can we do in our school system, especially as it relates to the crippling costs? First, I wish to clear a common misconception: College instructors do not all make the salaries the public imagines. By leaving my 10 year faculty career and accepting an offer for full time federal employment I multiplied my salary several times over. Second, there are areas in federal spending which can be trimmed. For example, The United States spends more on “defense” than the next ten countries combined. Yet, we are seeing that well educated computer experts can do far more damage far more easily and quickly and for far less cost than a multi-million dollar F-35 fighter aircraft. Why are we doing this? The United States is also the leading supplier of arms to the world. Taxpayer money is used to pay private companies for the research, development and acquisition of ever newer weapons so the previous generation of weapons can be sold off to the highest bidder, or the regime of our choice. The private companies then funnel a portion of their earnings into the “dark money” which finances the political campaigns of the Party which awarded them the contract to begin with thus assuring their win of the next contract. Billions could be re-directed into education.

Regarding the college cost question, I would recommend options from the following:

I would like to see a mandatory post-secondary year of service with an option for two or more years. This could be served in any of several federal programs, but States would be encouraged to form their own counterparts. Exceptions could be made on a case by case basis but the importance of this option is that it affords the new high school graduate with exposure to the real career world in a setting which provides time to assess these careers and to assess in what direction the participant really wants to go – traditional college major or technical/vocational school.

The Obama administration was in the process of regulating costly for-profit colleges and “universities”, especially the outright phony examples such as “Trump University”. Unfortunately, the seizure of the government by “Republicans” ended this effort. Yet, any casual observer can see from the advertising that these businesses are designed to appeal to and attract low income minorities. The result, favored by Republicans, is a relatively low-skilled, debt trapped workforce having to accept any kind of working conditions for fear of becoming unable to service their student loans. This dovetails nicely into the Republican drive to de-regulate businesses and suspend or abolish workplace safety standards deemed costly by employers. Businesses, of course, funnel part of their subsequent profits into the Dark Money which ensures the re-election of those who conspired to bring about these conditions. For profit technical schools and “colleges” must be regulated under strict standards or put out of business.

During my federal service I met with the Vice President for Education of one of the largest and most well known corporations in America. He cited many examples of his company’s efforts to re-train, even to completely pay for a full college education, employees who, having been hired on the basis of their “graduation” from these degree mills found themselves utterly unable to do the work for which they were hired. He cited several class action suits being prepared by employees against these mills. Yet, Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, has blocked any means of financial restitution for these now employment-disabled workers. These “colleges and universities” must meet accreditation standards or cease operation.

The first two years, or the period necessary to acquire professional certification through an accredited technical/vocational school should be tuition free for students who have passed adequate and proper admissions testing. Community colleges were among the post-secondary institutions at which I have taught. These colleges typically offer a two track program: the Associate of Arts for students intending to transfer to a four year school; and, the Associate of Science for students seeking professional certification in an occupation. Remarkably, a common denominator among these schools is the shockingly great disparity between those students who declare intent to continue to a four year degree and those students who actually do. Given that the Associate of Arts is functionally meaningless in most career tracks, money that would have been expended in tuition and fees remission for the A.A. should be held in escrow conditional upon the completion of a four year degree. The money would then be paid directly to the school.

The money earmarked for tuition and fees remission for the Junior and Senior years of a four year program should also be held in escrow and released upon completion of the degree. Again, the money would then be paid to the school.

Those students experiencing financial hardship or inability to pay will be examined for their ability to complete a program and, if satisfactory, awarded tuition and fee remission contingent upon yearly submission of copies of tax returns and upon submission of semester grades. Students dropping out of programs will be offered a hearing to explain why. Those students presenting proof of acceptable reasons, such as a health crisis for themselves or close family, will be exempted from repayment of tuition and fees. Those failing to provide adequate reasons will receive a judgment against them requiring full repayment of tuition and fees up to their point of departure. Falsification of reasons will result in criminal charges for fraud.

Under the current administration the taxpayers have seen hundreds of billions of tax breaks go to corporations, including of course the Trump conglomerate, and to the very ultra wealthiest of individuals, including friends and family of the “President”. To offset this loss of tax income this government has canceled to 2.1% yearly raise for federal workers and the locality adjustment supplement. It is also devising ways to drastically cut MediCare and MediCaid and funding for dozens of programs and agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, and the State Department. We can easily afford to roll back these egregious thefts of public money, especially when we come to understand that money is not wealth. Sitting alone on an island with trunks stuffed with money will teach that lesson quickly enough. Wealth lies in human potential, not in pieces of paper. Our country is squandering its wealth in the quest for a fantasy.

These are just a few ideas. I do not doubt there are other possibilities I have not included. I initiated this blog in hopes of interaction with readers. Hopefully, among the many readers in so many countries around the world there will be those who will participate in this discussion.



by Marco M. Pardi

The future is like a corridor into which we can see only by the light coming from behind.” Edward Weyer, Jr. 1959

All comments are welcome and will receive a response.

Recently Kathy, one of our new readers, asked my impressions of a PEW projection of changing demographics. I should first make clear that in all my years as an Anthropologist I was always informed that Anthropologists are not Futurists; we do not formally speculate on the outcomes or further developments of that which we study. Of course, there are some who say Anthropologists are among the best qualified to project future trends, whether in human evolution, languages, or the myriad of social issues. We also have, and continue to play critical roles in the Intelligence Community. Although, here too the Anthropologist must limit himself to immediacies: Supply this warlord and x, y, and z are highly likely; destabilize that leader and an armed insurgency likely follows, supported by A, B. or C in descending order of probability. Target culture most likely will accept messages in XYZ form. And so on.

So, I respond to questions of futurism in a few fundamental ways: I am old enough to remember a long train of “informed” predictions, most of which did not come true; I read medical opinion (written before my time) that Man could not exceed 35 mph on a vehicle without his body flying apart. As a child in the early 1950’s I went to Dearborn Michigan and viewed the elaborate models of “Futurama”, depicting flying cars as common place by the 1980’s. The 1960’s, for much of which I was out of the country or otherwise occupied, brought some changes “no one saw coming”. But actually, it’s hard to imagine that anyone who lived through the ultra repressive Puritanism of the 1950’s could not see “The Sexual Revolution” coming. Or the Civil Rights upheaval. Or the civil disobedience of many Vietnam war protesters. Or the explosion of recreational drugs. And more. Of course, some of the futurist projections still being made in this era were ridiculous on their face – to anyone who understood physical evolution and the confounding effect of human culture. There is no evidence we are moving toward larger brains and smaller bodies; quite the opposite, if anything. And, physical evolution being measured in generations, we are unlikely to notice significant changes beyond minute incremental changes in the frequencies of certain conditions.

Yes, as the study Kathy referenced pointed out, demographics do change over time. But the methods of calculating demographics must be examined carefully; “appearances can be deceiving”. I remember in the early 1970’s claims that the (then called) Black population in the U.S. had only about 20% of its population which could claim “no White blood”. In this century easily obtainable genetic testing is surprising a number of Whites with previously unknown Black contributions to their genetic make-up. Yet, we do not seem to be moving toward a “light tan” population as predicted. The question arises: What makes a Black a Black, and a White a White? Or any other category, for that matter. Is it a percentage of one’s genes? A percentage of one’s experience, as in how and by whom one was raised? Where one has lived?

One of my temporary duties at a U.S. Government agency was serving on the Diversity committee. Along with counterparts from other agencies I met with the Secretary of Health & Human Services to identify and define these issues. I pointed out that I had lived approximately two years in Africa and asked, “Does that make me more African-American than a Black who was born in Detroit and never left town?” No one was able to answer that. I pointed out that, except for two British grandmothers my entire family is Italian and I was born in Rome. Yet, before people hear my name no one “marks” me for Italian. Is that because of my British genes, or because most Americans, not having been to Italy, have a very slanted idea of what “Italian” looks like? Or, could it be that, since Garibaldi unified Italy only in the 1850’s, the mix of various genetic contributions such as French, Spanish, German and Greek kind of muddied the water?

On one of my many visits to my home city an Italian man came up to me and, in English, volunteered to be my guide around the city. What am I? Who am I? And, why should I care?

I also pointed out in that Diversity meeting that, despite laws or regulations, people self-segregate. I saw that in the 1960’s military, in the 1970’s college cafeterias, and in the 1990’s government workplace social events. But on what basis does a person choose a group? Do they first look in the mirror? In one of my federal assignments I worked with a new woman who seemed “White”. Our team leader quietly informed me she was “Black”. My first thought was, Why do I need to know this? My second thought was, how did this woman come to this conclusion about herself? Of course, I met her in the office and had no knowledge of her history, family, or upbringing, much less her genes. To me, she was a human to work with; I expected her to do human things. The same team leader later told me that yet another new hire was lesbian. I refrained from a smart ass answer: I wasn’t planning on trying to have sex with her, so who the hell cares?

The mix of genetics and culture, somehow swept together under the term Ethnicity is a particularly kaleidoscopic one. The invocation of that term seems intended to cease further drilling. If so, this means any continued projections of future states or relative balances of ethnicity must be based on assumptions for which the baseline information has been artificially cut off. Mustn’t probe the wood pile too deeply. In the spirit of the opening quote, the light illuminating the way ahead can be allowed to come from only a certain approved distance. In fairness, though, the pathways from presumed origins can be re-traced just so far; one should not be required to identify family hand prints on a cave wall.

Larger social trends are often easier to project into the future. Although we have long heard the term “Culture War”, we do seem to be approaching it. (Okay, it’s really sub-culture vs. sub-culture but some people take umbrage at the term sub.) Regardless, the concern seems to be with the direction, speed, and degree of change. Basically, how and when will change affect my group’s status?

I’ve heard people express shock at what they perceive as the sudden appearance of ideas and actions, making it easy to pinpoint Trump as the origin and cause. But as early as the 1960’s I began to think the degree to which one is surprised by change is a measure of how one was not paying attention all along. Trump, albeit the rabble-rousing stooge eased into place by a Republican Party which “appeared” to lose Primary debates to him, is simply that: a front-man for power brokers who have been laying groundwork for decades.

I’m not talking about some Star Chamber cabal worthy of the Alex Jones Conspiracy Hour. I’m talking about the descendants of the Robber-Barons who fought the labor movement in the 1920’s, the “Godless communists” starting in the ’30’s, and the Liberals ever since. I’ve met several people who lived their lives furious at FDR for his New Deal, which they branded as Socialist Communism. These same people, and others of their type (I could identify only WASP – White Anglo-Saxon Protestant as “their type”) fought against Civil Rights; Immigration; a woman’s control over her reproductive functions; World peace – though most were never in any military; public education; public radio and television; “them damn environmentalists”; health and safety regulations; gay rights, and every other “Liberal, Commie, Pinko, Homo, Elitist, and Sinful Perversion”. These people are not distinguishable by any lack of indoor plumbing; some of them can even complete a sentence grammatically. No, these people are your next door neighbors, your co-workers, maybe even your physician.

Yet, no matter how clear the science on a number of environmental issues including climate change, how documented the history of Fascism, or how obvious the contradictions when they vote for an oligarchy which deeply harms them they vote into office one-issue demagogues while completely ignoring how the utter stupidity of their choice radiates out through the entire society. Thus, we got the Tea Party, the Freedom Caucus and the stupefied inertia which flowed from them. Yes, a large portion of the country became angry. But this portion was intellectually unable to understand, or morally unable to admit, they had brought Congressional inertia on themselves by handing government over to The Party of No. Solution? Enter the man who said, “Only I can fix it!”

I’m in the uncomfortable position of saying I was not entirely surprised at the 2016 election of a Fascist regime. Uncomfortable because I did not foresee the election of such an utterly incompetent Fascist regime. Both Mussolini and Hitler, compelling rabble-rousers, were ushered into power by entrenched figures who thought they could control them once in office. The same was likely true with Reagan, and now likely true with Trump. I expect that, as happened with an earlier figure in this Party, Trump will be brought down from within. Unfortunately, the orgy of environmental de-regulation and other catastrophic actions by Donald Little-Hands Trump will likely survive unnoticed in the collective relief at his removal.

That’s about as far into the future as I care to see. I’m busy working on the present.