There was a time not very long ago when I believed that most human beings could be reached through reason.  You know:  you make what you consider a solid and persuasive argument, back it up with hard facts, and you assume that the average person will agree eventually with what you have to say.  And if they don't agree, you would hope that it's because they had solid arguments themselves to back up their own positions. 

But as I've gotten older I've begun to realize that human beings are influenced much more by things like strong emotions (fear, anger, indignation), ideology, and social prejudices than by logic, reason, or rationality.  Case in point:  The South.  The Huffington Post had a wonderful article recently that shows just how backwards the entire region we call the South is on just about any measure of social progress: 

The South is poorer, less upwardly mobile, more unhealthy, and much unhappier than the rest of the country.  One would think that the people who live in these southern states would welcome any sort of governmental assistance that they can get, but that's not the case.  In fact, southern states are at the forefront of the movement to cut government programs that assist the most vulnerable members of the society (children, the handicapped, the mentally ill, substance abusers, the elderly, and pregnant women).   Reason all you want with a southerner who thinks that government is the problem, but it probably won't convince him that many of the social difficulties that he experiences in his state are in fact the result of too little government, not too much. 

Prior to the last presidential election, film-maker Angela Pelosi tried to understand the anti-governmental attitudes of people in Mississippi, one of the most backward states in the Union, according to the data in the Huffington Post article. While the people she interviewed may be more extreme than the average Mississippian, the attitudes expressed seem to be typical, insofar as the citizens of this state continue to vote consistently against their own self-interest:

I'm not trying to pick on the South here.  I'm sure that there are many fine, decent people living south of the Mason-Dixon line.  And I don't think that the cult of the irrational exists solely in the south.   For example, Pelosi also interviewed citizens of New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy to ask anti-government folks there what programs should be cut from the federal budget.  The answers that she received to this question were as painful as they were funny:

Keep in mind that these were all people who thought that the size of government ought to be cut substantially, but, when they had to explain exactly which government programs ought to be cut, they seemed to become transformed all of a sudden into New York liberals.  Once again, ideology and self-interest trump logic and reason.

So, if large segments of our American population seem to be totally impervious to rational arguments and even self-evident facts, how is it possible to persuade such individuals of the "truth"?  Either one has to resort to flagrantly rhetorical appeals to emotion (hardly philosophical) or one attempts to engage in rational discourse, knowing that his or her arguments will inevitably fall on deaf ears.   

In short, how can philosophical argumentation work at all in a society where the average citizen hasn't been educated to understand the value of reason in the first place?  It's a dilemma that I don't have any easy answers for.  I can't help thinking, however, that this great love affair that we Americans are currently having with the irrational doesn't bode too well for the future of our country. 

I hate people who thrive on causing pain and suffering to others.  That's why I hate rapists, pedophile priests, and child abusers.  But these folks are practically saint-like compared to another group that has it in, not just for specific individuals, but for entire generations of human beings not even born yet. 

The individuals I'm referring to are those who, out of purely ideological motivations or because they are whores for corporate interests, continue to spread the idea that global warming is a hoax perpetuated by rabid environmental wackos who hate our beautiful American way of life.  What these folks typically do is find some fringe, right-leaning "scientist" who has "hard data" that proves either that global warming is not really happening at all or that it is not caused by human activity.

Of course, there's virtually unanimous agreement among serious scientists that global warming is real, that it is caused mainly by the spewing of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, and that the consequences, if we don't get a handle on this problem, are dire for our species and for the planet as a whole. 

Period. 

End of story. 

There is no real debate about global warming.  There's only the truth that we are screwing up the planet because of our selfish, short-sighted, materialistic human activities and there's the reality that, if we want future generations to inherit a planet that is not completely inhospitable to human life, we'd better act now, before it's too late.   This means living far more sustainably, consuming much less, and radically reducing our global CO2 emissions.

But global-warming deniers will do all they can to prevent us from changing our lifestyles in any way that will cut into fat corporate profits.  The more we consume and the more we use fossil fuels to heat our homes and drive our cars, the more profits there are for multinational corporations like Exxon and General Motors.  And the way our economy is set up, just about the only thing that really matters is nice, bloated profits.  The well-being of future generations is a luxury that a corporation can't afford to consider.

The global warming deniers, however, may finally have gone too far.  Recently, the Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by - you guessed it - corporations interested in spreading doubts about the reality of global warming, created an ad campaign comparing those "who still believe in global warming" to some of the world's most notorious murderers, like Theodore J. Kaczynski (aka The Unibomber) and Charles Manson.  According to the Institute, "what these murderers and and madmen have done differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the 'mainstream media' and liberal politicians say about global warming."

After receiving a torrent of criticism from liberals as well as conservatives, the Heartland Institute suspended its nasty campaign.  You can be quite sure, however, that this won't be the end of their attempts to spread misinformation and raise doubts about the legitimacy of global warming.  It's the same strategy that the tobacco industry used to try to cause confusion about the health risks of cigarette smoking.

But just as this misinformation spread by the tobacco industry created a backlash against cigarette smoking, so too will global warming deniers, like those at the Heartland Institute, eventually go too far with their malicious lies.   All right-wing ideologues, after all, share a similar contempt for the intelligence of the average person.  That will ultimately prove to be their down-fall.  The more extreme they get in spreading their propaganda, the more attention they draw to the issue of climate change, and the more they ultimately help those of us on the left to get the truth out.

In the meanwhile, feel free to let the Heartland Institute know exactly how you feel about their campaign of lies!

There are some traditions in this world that are just so patently offensive, so completely unsavory and repulsive, that, if you are a person with any sort of decent character at all, you just have to spurn them with all the righteous indignation that you are capable of summoning up from the very bowels of your being.

For me, Christmas is one of these traditions.

I know what you’re thinking: how could anyone have anything negative to say about Christmas? It is, after all, supposed to represent the best that humanity has to offer. And occasionally you do, in fact, hear some talk about that little baby in the manger, or about peace, human fellowship, and compassion for those in need. But the original message of Christmas, which I admit is pretty dandy, has gotten completely lost in our contemporary American incarnation of the holiday.

We now begin to celebrate the Christmas season the day after Halloween. Ghouls and goblins quickly give way to manger scenes and plastic Santas for the front yard. The Christmas season has become an excuse for overspent Americans to squander the little funds they have left on crap that they and their families clearly don’t need. Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, which is nominally the “official” start of the Christmas shopping season, is the largest shopping day of the year, with parents waiting all night long to save a few pennies on some mass produced garbage that they think will show their neglected children that they still care about them.

Christmas has made purchasing power identical with love. The more gifts you buy your children, the more you supposedly are showing that you care about them. Those who can’t afford to buy gifts or simply choose not to are viewed, according to our American ethos, as deficient parents and defective citizens.

One would think that in an economy like ours, which is in deep economic crisis, Americans would reevaluate this need to consume, save their money, and focus on the deeper spiritual values that the season is supposed to have. But this doesn’t seem to be the case. This current holiday season was replete with all the usual stories of insane shoppers shoving, trampling, and pepper-spraying each other in the never-ending quest to get the best bargain. Spending is on the rise again and savings rates are dropping once more. This may be fine and dandy for retailers, but it is disastrous for the long-term economic viability of the average American family.

This year, in his Christmas message, Pope Benedict XVI attempted to remind Christians that there is something more to Christmas than the quest to get the latest electronic gadget. “Let us ask the Lord to help us see through the superficial glitter of this season,” he said from his pulpit at St. Peters, “and to discover behind it the child in the stable in Bethlehem, so as to find true joy and true light.”

These are very beautiful sentiments to be sure, and like Charlie Brown, I too wonder if the true mean of Christmas could ever be restored. But I honestly don’t think that it is possible at this point. The holiday season has become so intrinsically intertwined with materialism and consumption that I doubt that we can ever return to a more innocent time when the season was a celebration of religious faith and family commitment (if there ever even was such a time). It seems to me that Christmas has become so irredeemably corrupted that it’s probably best just to put the entire holiday to rest once and for all.

I can hear the reactions now: “What! Eliminate Christmas! How could anyone even suggest such a horrible thing?”

It’s reactions like these, which I encounter every time I mention my idea of “just saying ‘no’ to Christmas,” that has made me realize that this idea is probably not going to gain any widespred traction any time soon. So, in the interests of reaching some kind of concord with those who simply cannot live without the magic of Christmas, let me propose a slightly less radical idea: just say no to presents at Christmas time. Celebrate the holiday with your family and friends, focus on the religious and social aspects of the season, but eliminate the need to buy any gifts. If Christmas really represents something more than an opportunity for Americans to spend money they don’t have on stuff they don’t need, than this watered-down proposition should make perfect sense.

In fact, the concept of a gift-free Christmas is starting to find supporters. The Canadian Mennonite Church has developed a wonderful site on just this topic called Buy Nothing Christmas that offers some attractive options to the usual Chritmas splurging. Another interesting site, called No Gift Christmas This Year, even has an e-card that you can send to your friends and family informing them that you will be spending time, rather than money, on them this year.

But I know already that, even this idea, is probably too radical for most Americans.

So let me propose a third option: The $100 Christmas. That’s not $100 per person; that’s $100 for everyone you have to buy presents for. The nifty thing about this idea is that you can still show your appreciation for people by giving them something at Christmas time without turning the holidays into a mad buying orgy. Everyone will feel loved and appreciated and no one will go into debt during the holidays. What’s not to like?

Of course, very few Americans would even take this idea seriously (my parents actually yelled at me when I proposed the idea to them a few years back), which substantiates the very point I have been making: Christmas has been irredeemably corrupted by consumerism and the only viable option at this point is to “just say ‘NO.’”

Like any addiction, consumerism is a hard habit to break, especially at a time of year like Christmas when shopping and faith seem to be incestuously intertwined. One day perhaps—and that day is probably not far off—support groups will become available to help people get over their need to spend their hard-earned money at Christmas time. Perhaps there will even be a special pathology recognized in the next issue of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders called “Christmas shopping mania” and pharmaceutical companies will begin to develop a pill to help us get through this season with our wallets intact.

Until then, however, the burden lies with each of us individually to do all we can to resist the temptations to “buy into” the crass materialism of Christmas. I can’t guarantee that your family members will be happy if you make this commitment, but you probably will find that the entire Christmas season suddenly becomes much less stressful than it’s ever been.

And who knows, you might suddenly discover the true meaning of Christmas that seems to elude most Americans at this time of year:

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

Merry Christmas!

Autocratic regimes throughout the Middle East have been falling one after the other--first in Tunisia, then in Egypt, and now it appears in Lybia as well.  The Arab Spring gives us hope for a world completely free of petty tyrants and  vicious dictators, regardless of whether they rule over occupied Tibet or the  boardrooms of Wall Street. It is this dream of a world in which the masses  control their own destinies that underlies the political vision of that  poet-sage and neo-beatnik from Brooklyn, Alcibiades J. Grunthaler. Here's what  Grunthaler has to say about the psychological make-up of the autocrat that all  but insures his or her ultimate downfall:

"The capricious autocrat  is incapable of compromise even on the most insignificant of matters, because  she necessarily views herself as being all-knowing and completely infallible. To admit  that anyone else has the slightest amount of expertise to offer on any matter is  to admit that she is something less than omnipotent. And this is one thing that  the capricious autocrat can never willingly acknowledge to herself  or to anyone  else.

Because she and she alone knows what is best for all, she can  tolerate no disagreement, no alternative perspectives, and, above all else,  absolutely no dissenting viewpoints. Thus she surrounds herself with  those who  are temperamentally and intellectually most  like herself -- yes-women who will always agree with whatever dictates flow from  her divinely inspired lips -- and those eunuchs who daily sing hosannas to her  eternal glory.

Because the capricious autocrat views her wisdom as divinely inspired, those who dare challenge her mandates -- no matter how erratic and destructive these  mandates might be -- must be treated as infidels. And infidels must be crushed  at all costs. For the mere existence of those who dissent is enough to throw  into question her so-called omnipotence and shows the autocrat up for what she  truly is: an insecure, intellectually barren parasite feeding off the industry  and creativity of those she seeks to dominate.

Although the  capricious autocrat may  do considerable harm to the polis she seeks to control, in the end  she must inevitably fail in her quest at total domination. She must fail,  because each act of domination engenders greater and greater resentment, and  resentment leads to resistance, and resistance to outright  revolution. In fact, the autocrat cannot withstand the people's revolution,  because she has no real power-base or support other than in her own mind. When  the end of her reign comes, all of her self-proclaimed accomplishments will be  swept away on the garbage heap of oblivion and her very name will become infamous with future generations.

And thus it is for all those  who dare violate the sovereign will of the people...." 

From Sic Semper: The Political Writing of A.J. Grunthaler

As part of my on-going effort to streamline my web profile--for better or worse,  I now have over 15 years of web resources that I've created--I recently did a  search to see what came up under my name, and much to my surprise, I found a  critique of a short piece I did in the 90s to introduce students to the  philosophy of Socrates. It wasn't supposed to be a scholarly article, but a  general overview of Socrates' thought for undergraduate students who knew  absolutely nothing about the great philosopher.

The critique was written  by a fellow named Norman L.  Livergood, who apparently was less than smitten by what I had  written:

"Mr. Russo is not particularly any worse (or better) than  most academics, but his unenlightened misunderstanding
of Plato is typical of  scholastic 'professors.' Academic 'professors' are the modern equivalent of the  charlatans Plato opposed, the sophists. 

What is especially  perplexing is how a scholastic so-called 'Plato expert' (self-appointed) can  comprehend certain elements of Plato's philosophy and yet--in the next paragraph  sometimes--totally misrepresent what Plato is saying. This kind of selective,  limited understanding is particularly true of such scholars as Russo."  (from: http://www.hermes-press.com/russo.htm)

I'll  pass over Mr. Livergood's ad hominum attacks on me, except to point out that I  certainly would never claim to be an "expert" on Plato's thought. I'm just a   simple teacher of philosophy who tries to the best of his ability to make  complex thought accessible to the average college student.

Concerning  the content of what I wrote, the basic insight that I had expressed in the  original piece would certainly be accepted as true by most well-informed  Socrates scholars. Socrates' goal in cross-examining the young men of Athens  undoubtedly had both a negative as well as a positive function. The negative
  function is obvious: it is to show the arrogant individuals with whom he is  debating that they really don't know that which they profess to know. But, if  this was Socrates' sole philosophical purpose, then he would have been little  better than any Sophist. No, Socrates' ultimate purpose was a positive one: his method aimed at leading himself and those with who he was debating to a higher,  universal truth about the right way to live.

I don't know what Mr.  Livegood's own position on Socrates is because I haven't read his book (since it's only $10 I probably will check it  out at some point just to see  what his beef with me actually is). I would
strongly encourage him, however, to  cite the text version of this piece, which will be coming out in my new  anthology, Ancient Wisdom for  Modern Minds. I don't think that's much to ask...especially  coming from a modern "Sophist" like myself