Wednesday, June 26, 2013
On Marriage Equality
Feel like out of the cool clique on this one. Perhaps I’m nuts – or maybe just a bigot? But from a policy perspective marriage should ultimately not be about love but about children. Cheers! I think you should be able to love whomever you want. Multiple people even. Love it! Sexy! However, let the reasonable consider that taxation and benefits are a matter of social policy – and any promising social policy should always pivot around what’s best for progeny. No? Would it be fair for example that I’d have to file head of household while raising two young boys, by myself (which I do), and pay a higher marginal tax rate than two homosexuals with no children? Does that make sense to anyone? Call me crazy but my raising two young citizens should earn more of a right to tax breaks than their love. Society should subsidize my work as parent before it should ever consider subsidizing the love between two men – or two women. I mean, let the two men love – that’s fantastic! – I just don’t want to pay for it! And such absurdity doesn’t stop at marginal rates. If a same sex couple were to sell a $750,000 home and I were to similarly sell a $750,000 home both with a basis of $250,000, I’d have to pay $37,500 in additional capital gains tax that they would not have to – despite the fact I have the additional burden of raising two young children. Again, perhaps I’m just a pistachio but that’s just stupid. And then there’s the issue of benefits, unlimited marital deduction, etc. So before we go about turning millennia’s worth of tradition on it’s head and emoting progress, let’s just give it some thought folks. And yes, there’s the issue of same-sex parenting, I’m still noodling on that one. Perhaps parental deductions should supplant marital deduction? Still noodling.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Excalibur
As earnest as water runs downhill, so everyone seeks to be "Good." An inviolable law! There is confusion absolutely… but no “evil.” Torque cranks constantly however, breaking-up how we define Good, how we pattern the reflecting flow of that unyielding pressure. And the battle of culture roots in this hydraulic.
When not properly channeled, the desire to be Good crimps under its own pressure. Tinfoil wrinkle the manifold ways it can be colored and refracted. Such excess “discretion” crinkles smooth rules, as angles rationalize and shatter law in every direction. Good becomes feckless. Opinions splinter. And as definitions fray, reflections of Good shimmer everywhere - often off actions most bad… (Hitler even thought he was purifying the human race!) And yet, to this day, the only institutions presumptuous enough to exclaim hard, purposeful, straight definitions are the old, doddering hands of the world's religions - or to a lesser degree, those initially pristine, but typically eventually myopic political ideologies that end fat, slopping partisan feed troughs. And, to be sure, there are slighter movements off into the periphery. But where are the philosophers? Where the blacksmiths that deign to forge new answers? What guiding edge now pulls along our culture? What force now shapes our image that we become in our children? Who leads?
So that it is not a question of what we want, but how we come to understand what we want. We all want Good. But what is Good? All human action turns over this keystone question. It sharpens and quickens our judgment; and repercussions, vast, lean back and clang against the steel core of that answer. Few however hammer that flowing, reflective steel into solid, straight answers. Fewer still polish their understanding against the flint of this question… “What is Good?” But it is “the” quintessential question. “What is Good?” The very answer makes a people. It draws their form and defends their way. “What is Good?”
To date, some answers - like some cultures - are better approximations than others. But we now find ourselves at multiple tipping points, where approximations are no good. We need the answer. We’re lost and running out of time. – And while culture is the very passing of a people's answer (or road map) to the next generation, it is also the corruption of that answer at each pass. So that cultures tend to decline, as morals dissipate with each succeeding generation. – And there's a queer cycle whose nadir is a historical fact – a recurrent, patterned generation (three to four generations after a great war); whose age careens adrift, riding a small raft of questions over a deep sea of answers. Where opinions crest, and crinkle, and “white-cap” into chaos. Where no straight law is cut; and the flow of Good has leapt the tracks. – Familiar? This is our generation. It was also Buddha’s, Confucius’, Plato’s, Kant’s’, and virtually all the great law-givers. They “smithed” Good because they had to. It was up to them to put their culture back on track. Like Arthur pulling Excalibur deep from the rock; they pulled their answer. And so too must we, as it grinding-slides out… slow, heavy, sharp and sparking!
Growing up, at alternating times, I thought it was good to fight or be a hippie; bulky this year or skinny the next; but at each stage, I wanted the same thing - to be Good. Yet at each stage I defined Good differently. And that story I think is not unique. I mean if one could be the most well liked, most esteemed person on the planet, who would not be that person? We all grope after that pattern... and when too many answers abound, often we lurch, so that our actions wobble at that young, volatile age as our feedback “shoe-laces,” looping into greater insecurity and increasing uncertainty.
– Adolescence is this very clamoring, this indecisive flip-flopping around and trial-and-error-like discovery to be Good. Heroes are everywhere! – "…pinball, a kaleidoscope of images darting across their eyes!" And as everyone knows, this is also the age when kids are most impressionable. Every young boy wishes to be cool. Ask him! If it weren't for competing images, it’d be a “piece of cake” to convince a kid, "this is cool!" and have him believe you - which is why some parents opt to so shelter their children. Adjacently, this is also why everyone else focuses on them! Throughout childhood, a veritable circus of pied pipers flute to lure a child's ego to that Good which most benefits the piper. And we are all pipers. Some lead home. Some to the river.
Terrorists.... They too want to be Good. And while they’re comical, don’t doubt they’re considered "cool" by their own. 72 virgins! And I even hear that they have trading cards!
So "yes", what is Good is ultimately subjective - but only when there's no working definition of Good… only when no clear call cries as legend has it, Excalibur did, “Take me up!” There are stories told of ages when man must step to the stone! This is such a time! “What is Good?” We must pull some cardinal blade from the throat of that granite question. “What is Good?” We must evoke some eternal measure to steer-cut our way through this deep sea of ballooning possibilities, and conflict-cresting answers. We must answer “the” question to properly frame all others.
So I propose a new working definition of Good. Challenge it! You grab hold, torque & turn and hammer on anvil something better. If I am wrong, “Cast me away!” But I begin with the premise that life is merely the most efficient cycler of energy: energy's path of least resistance. – The sun’s eddy and whirling dervish! Therefore, Good must then be defined as that which promotes maximum, sustained energy flow on the largest number of scaling dissipative structures - me, my family, local and national communities, humanity, Gaia, and on into the Cosmos. Of course, as with any scale, these scales too at times grind against each other, coiling as it does – that is, what is good for the Cosmos is not always good for man – likewise what is good for man may not be good for Gaia. (In a hydro-carbon economy, for example, my prosperity directly and positively corresponds to my carbon footprint. That is, the greater the resources that cycle through my life; the greater my carbon footprint, the more successful I am. But that may not be good for the environment. And whatever the effect on the environment, it is certainly not sustainable.) Ideally, these scales spiral up like a nautilus - as one coils left, another coils right on top – measured and reinforcing. On balance then, our function should seek to increase the flow of the whole, favoring always the yield of that most immediate scale - starting with the self, Adam-Smith-like, confident that the greater my flow the more I can organize the whole. Our Good must calculate scale yields that then “on net” enhance our affirmation of life. This is what I grip, dead-lifting, from that scabbard-stone… “What is Good?” Huh? What say you? If nothing… then “Take me up!” – Excalibur.
When not properly channeled, the desire to be Good crimps under its own pressure. Tinfoil wrinkle the manifold ways it can be colored and refracted. Such excess “discretion” crinkles smooth rules, as angles rationalize and shatter law in every direction. Good becomes feckless. Opinions splinter. And as definitions fray, reflections of Good shimmer everywhere - often off actions most bad… (Hitler even thought he was purifying the human race!) And yet, to this day, the only institutions presumptuous enough to exclaim hard, purposeful, straight definitions are the old, doddering hands of the world's religions - or to a lesser degree, those initially pristine, but typically eventually myopic political ideologies that end fat, slopping partisan feed troughs. And, to be sure, there are slighter movements off into the periphery. But where are the philosophers? Where the blacksmiths that deign to forge new answers? What guiding edge now pulls along our culture? What force now shapes our image that we become in our children? Who leads?
So that it is not a question of what we want, but how we come to understand what we want. We all want Good. But what is Good? All human action turns over this keystone question. It sharpens and quickens our judgment; and repercussions, vast, lean back and clang against the steel core of that answer. Few however hammer that flowing, reflective steel into solid, straight answers. Fewer still polish their understanding against the flint of this question… “What is Good?” But it is “the” quintessential question. “What is Good?” The very answer makes a people. It draws their form and defends their way. “What is Good?”
To date, some answers - like some cultures - are better approximations than others. But we now find ourselves at multiple tipping points, where approximations are no good. We need the answer. We’re lost and running out of time. – And while culture is the very passing of a people's answer (or road map) to the next generation, it is also the corruption of that answer at each pass. So that cultures tend to decline, as morals dissipate with each succeeding generation. – And there's a queer cycle whose nadir is a historical fact – a recurrent, patterned generation (three to four generations after a great war); whose age careens adrift, riding a small raft of questions over a deep sea of answers. Where opinions crest, and crinkle, and “white-cap” into chaos. Where no straight law is cut; and the flow of Good has leapt the tracks. – Familiar? This is our generation. It was also Buddha’s, Confucius’, Plato’s, Kant’s’, and virtually all the great law-givers. They “smithed” Good because they had to. It was up to them to put their culture back on track. Like Arthur pulling Excalibur deep from the rock; they pulled their answer. And so too must we, as it grinding-slides out… slow, heavy, sharp and sparking!
Growing up, at alternating times, I thought it was good to fight or be a hippie; bulky this year or skinny the next; but at each stage, I wanted the same thing - to be Good. Yet at each stage I defined Good differently. And that story I think is not unique. I mean if one could be the most well liked, most esteemed person on the planet, who would not be that person? We all grope after that pattern... and when too many answers abound, often we lurch, so that our actions wobble at that young, volatile age as our feedback “shoe-laces,” looping into greater insecurity and increasing uncertainty.
– Adolescence is this very clamoring, this indecisive flip-flopping around and trial-and-error-like discovery to be Good. Heroes are everywhere! – "…pinball, a kaleidoscope of images darting across their eyes!" And as everyone knows, this is also the age when kids are most impressionable. Every young boy wishes to be cool. Ask him! If it weren't for competing images, it’d be a “piece of cake” to convince a kid, "this is cool!" and have him believe you - which is why some parents opt to so shelter their children. Adjacently, this is also why everyone else focuses on them! Throughout childhood, a veritable circus of pied pipers flute to lure a child's ego to that Good which most benefits the piper. And we are all pipers. Some lead home. Some to the river.
Terrorists.... They too want to be Good. And while they’re comical, don’t doubt they’re considered "cool" by their own. 72 virgins! And I even hear that they have trading cards!
So "yes", what is Good is ultimately subjective - but only when there's no working definition of Good… only when no clear call cries as legend has it, Excalibur did, “Take me up!” There are stories told of ages when man must step to the stone! This is such a time! “What is Good?” We must pull some cardinal blade from the throat of that granite question. “What is Good?” We must evoke some eternal measure to steer-cut our way through this deep sea of ballooning possibilities, and conflict-cresting answers. We must answer “the” question to properly frame all others.
So I propose a new working definition of Good. Challenge it! You grab hold, torque & turn and hammer on anvil something better. If I am wrong, “Cast me away!” But I begin with the premise that life is merely the most efficient cycler of energy: energy's path of least resistance. – The sun’s eddy and whirling dervish! Therefore, Good must then be defined as that which promotes maximum, sustained energy flow on the largest number of scaling dissipative structures - me, my family, local and national communities, humanity, Gaia, and on into the Cosmos. Of course, as with any scale, these scales too at times grind against each other, coiling as it does – that is, what is good for the Cosmos is not always good for man – likewise what is good for man may not be good for Gaia. (In a hydro-carbon economy, for example, my prosperity directly and positively corresponds to my carbon footprint. That is, the greater the resources that cycle through my life; the greater my carbon footprint, the more successful I am. But that may not be good for the environment. And whatever the effect on the environment, it is certainly not sustainable.) Ideally, these scales spiral up like a nautilus - as one coils left, another coils right on top – measured and reinforcing. On balance then, our function should seek to increase the flow of the whole, favoring always the yield of that most immediate scale - starting with the self, Adam-Smith-like, confident that the greater my flow the more I can organize the whole. Our Good must calculate scale yields that then “on net” enhance our affirmation of life. This is what I grip, dead-lifting, from that scabbard-stone… “What is Good?” Huh? What say you? If nothing… then “Take me up!” – Excalibur.
Monday, August 9, 2010
On Moral Theory and the Moral Act
In the framing of moral theory one should weight the consequences first. That is, one should focus on engineering the particular consequences that emerge by virtue of many people acting as you think they ought to act. The implementation of virtue however should not be judged by its consequences. To err is human! Therefore, any action should then be judged purely by the degree to which that act sprung from a character embracing the "consequentialist" ideal.
Some see morality in the consequence. Some see morality in the intent. Pragmatists, the former; prigs, the latter. But they need not be at odds. We can spiral this around. What if the consequence of a moral act serves to edify the virtue of the person (or system) that generated the intent in the first place, so that the actor is also the acted upon – so that the consequences of the intent, act back upon itself, the intent? It is through such circumstances that we often witness whirling virtuous cycles – self-reinforcing, stable, and good. The whole is the ideal! That is Good.
Some see morality in the consequence. Some see morality in the intent. Pragmatists, the former; prigs, the latter. But they need not be at odds. We can spiral this around. What if the consequence of a moral act serves to edify the virtue of the person (or system) that generated the intent in the first place, so that the actor is also the acted upon – so that the consequences of the intent, act back upon itself, the intent? It is through such circumstances that we often witness whirling virtuous cycles – self-reinforcing, stable, and good. The whole is the ideal! That is Good.
On Gayness and Marriage
The 14th amendment was enacted in 1868. It was written into the constitution because there were doubts about whether or not congress could legitimately enact the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 read "citizens of every race and color ... [have] full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens." That is, the spirit of the 1866 Act and the 1868 Amendment, if you were to unfurl its logic, was meant to protect classes of birth - like race, national origin, sex or religion – where modern American jurisprudence would apply “strict scrutiny.” The 14th amendment was never meant to apply to classes of choice. It was never meant to apply to homosexuality. That is clear.
Let me reiterate the point and sharpen it. Homosexuality is a class of choice. It is not a class of birth – like race, national origin, sex or religion. Yes, bores will argue that “they” are “born that way” – whatever that means. And while I will conceded that may well be true for some; it is not true for all. But whatever the case, we must maintain the concept of free will (choice) – for if we do not uphold that foundational concept, then all law – moral or state – simply crumbles. I mean, how could anyone ever be held responsible if they never had a choice? “I had no choice but to kill those three people.” Look, I don’t particularly believe in free will – but for the sake of order and deterrence, it is clear that we must maintain the willing suspension of disbelief when it comes to free will. So the equal protection clause only applies to classes of birth – where one has no choice. You can’t help being born black or female, etc. It does not apply to classes of choice.
Yes, you can argue that religion is a class of choice and that the equal protection clause clearly applies to it. But the heart of the difference is that by making a religious choice and then marrying one is not demanding additional privileges whilst by making a sexual-orientation choice and then marrying one is indeed demanding special privileges – for example, spousal benefits.
I mean, think about it. There is a slippery slope here – not to be glib. But if we start opening up the definition of marriage and extending the equal protection clause to anybody that’s made a choice, then what would stop, for example, an entire community from wedding and taking mutual advantages of marital exemptions for estate tax purposes? I mean, where is the line drawn? We should draw it traditionally – with one man, one woman – just as 7 million Californians did.
Last but not least, the key line at issue in the 14th Amendment is that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Well, not to overstate the obvious, but it must be pointed out that homosexuals never had the right to get married in the first place, therefore there is no “privilege” being “abridged” by prop 8 – since homosexuals didn't have the right to marriage in the first place. That is, you first must have had the right to a privilege before there is even the potential of that privilege being unconstitutionally “abridged.”
I won’t bore you with the additional facts that as a society we often discriminate on a whole host of issues based upon what seems reasonable. For example, one can’t vote till they’re 18, etc. Again, it’s largely how we want to organize our society. So it’s not a religious thing, for me, it’s an engineering thing. What kind of society do we want to engineer? And where/what do we prune?
So the issues of gay marriage goes right to the heart of how we fundamentally structure society - what we incent, disincent, suppress, and subsidize. We should cut today what we want tomorrow. It’s the law of gardening. I mean, history proves tha...t civilization is best served by anchoring into absolutes – a handful of absolutes (call them principles if you like) that promote stability and a smooth “baton-passing,” as it were, from one generation to the next: we often call such intergenerational structure “culture.” And the traditional family unit is the keystone to any multi-generational tasks. So I say, let’s celebrate the traditional family unit, keep it sharp and defined – and esteemed, and not castrate it into some ineffectual fog of relativism. Who would argue after all that, as a species, this 21st century presents us with many challenges! And the type of challenges best met by a parent hoping and working toward a better life for their children.
On the flip side, you can chart how history has often morphed when “state-leisure” relaxes in the other direction – yes, art always erupts, and often a flourishing of drama and genius – but always hanging over, light on those heels, drags great monstrosities and ever-lowbrow-ing decline – and the deliquescence is inevitably the rot of the power of a people. Not my opinion. Just historical pattern. So it depends upon what you want - in what garden you want to live. But it’s always with such a seeming innocuous premise as “everyone-should-have-the-right-to” that the inexorable will of history arcs its way… further into decadence.
Let me reiterate the point and sharpen it. Homosexuality is a class of choice. It is not a class of birth – like race, national origin, sex or religion. Yes, bores will argue that “they” are “born that way” – whatever that means. And while I will conceded that may well be true for some; it is not true for all. But whatever the case, we must maintain the concept of free will (choice) – for if we do not uphold that foundational concept, then all law – moral or state – simply crumbles. I mean, how could anyone ever be held responsible if they never had a choice? “I had no choice but to kill those three people.” Look, I don’t particularly believe in free will – but for the sake of order and deterrence, it is clear that we must maintain the willing suspension of disbelief when it comes to free will. So the equal protection clause only applies to classes of birth – where one has no choice. You can’t help being born black or female, etc. It does not apply to classes of choice.
Yes, you can argue that religion is a class of choice and that the equal protection clause clearly applies to it. But the heart of the difference is that by making a religious choice and then marrying one is not demanding additional privileges whilst by making a sexual-orientation choice and then marrying one is indeed demanding special privileges – for example, spousal benefits.
I mean, think about it. There is a slippery slope here – not to be glib. But if we start opening up the definition of marriage and extending the equal protection clause to anybody that’s made a choice, then what would stop, for example, an entire community from wedding and taking mutual advantages of marital exemptions for estate tax purposes? I mean, where is the line drawn? We should draw it traditionally – with one man, one woman – just as 7 million Californians did.
Last but not least, the key line at issue in the 14th Amendment is that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Well, not to overstate the obvious, but it must be pointed out that homosexuals never had the right to get married in the first place, therefore there is no “privilege” being “abridged” by prop 8 – since homosexuals didn't have the right to marriage in the first place. That is, you first must have had the right to a privilege before there is even the potential of that privilege being unconstitutionally “abridged.”
I won’t bore you with the additional facts that as a society we often discriminate on a whole host of issues based upon what seems reasonable. For example, one can’t vote till they’re 18, etc. Again, it’s largely how we want to organize our society. So it’s not a religious thing, for me, it’s an engineering thing. What kind of society do we want to engineer? And where/what do we prune?
So the issues of gay marriage goes right to the heart of how we fundamentally structure society - what we incent, disincent, suppress, and subsidize. We should cut today what we want tomorrow. It’s the law of gardening. I mean, history proves tha...t civilization is best served by anchoring into absolutes – a handful of absolutes (call them principles if you like) that promote stability and a smooth “baton-passing,” as it were, from one generation to the next: we often call such intergenerational structure “culture.” And the traditional family unit is the keystone to any multi-generational tasks. So I say, let’s celebrate the traditional family unit, keep it sharp and defined – and esteemed, and not castrate it into some ineffectual fog of relativism. Who would argue after all that, as a species, this 21st century presents us with many challenges! And the type of challenges best met by a parent hoping and working toward a better life for their children.
On the flip side, you can chart how history has often morphed when “state-leisure” relaxes in the other direction – yes, art always erupts, and often a flourishing of drama and genius – but always hanging over, light on those heels, drags great monstrosities and ever-lowbrow-ing decline – and the deliquescence is inevitably the rot of the power of a people. Not my opinion. Just historical pattern. So it depends upon what you want - in what garden you want to live. But it’s always with such a seeming innocuous premise as “everyone-should-have-the-right-to” that the inexorable will of history arcs its way… further into decadence.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Obama and Two-faced Mulattoes
I've come to know three mulattoes in my life. Two quite well and Barack Obama is the third. All three are dynamic - intelligent, with versatile personalities that make for good company, driven, and amoral to the core. - Not particularly immoral, just sharp at being able to rationalize any action.
Perhaps it's that it fundamentally roots in the fertilized plasticity of their personality - a personality that was born of necessity by having to shape and reshape its way through such different social landscapes (the white world and the black) - that such varying justifications, shifting mores, and smooth hypocrisy sync so effortlessly into expediency? Throughout their lives they had to turn on, then off, then on again different accents, cadences, senses of humor, sensibilities, the way they walked, their entire body language and posture. They are actors, all three.
You can see Obama talk one way in front of a white audience, another way in front of a black audience. You can see him look debonair though reserved at one moment, then fist-bumping and "dusting his shoulder off" alla Jay-Z the next. You can see how easily and (what is quintessentially Obama) how self-righteously he throws off public financing, though he just months earlier pledged to accept it. - He can convince you that he is black. Or he can convince you that he is white. This is the root of his talent. He's honed it his whole life. And now he's transmogrified this skill to convince you that he is presidential, despite having no experience and sometimes questionable positions. Talented, no doubt! But also shifting sand.
His talent is most remarkably on display when he slyly preempts potential criticisms against him by boldly holding them out in plain view, letting people see them and think about them, and thereby making such criticisms boring, "taking the sting out of it" as it were, or sometimes almost magically twisting such criticisms into just one more spice to his candidacy. Talk about "hanging a lantern on your problems!"
May this shtick be his downfall too? Will he hold out America's problems (as he holds out his own) to the public one too many times or too vociferously? America is a proud country. She does not take well to others holding her out. And McCain is a war hero. We are proud of him. We know he is American. And American plays in America. So if Obama is not careful, he could misstep by mistaking his talent for America's. And his name and background do not help his cause, it could onlt help to "other-ize" him. Only time will tell.
Perhaps it's that it fundamentally roots in the fertilized plasticity of their personality - a personality that was born of necessity by having to shape and reshape its way through such different social landscapes (the white world and the black) - that such varying justifications, shifting mores, and smooth hypocrisy sync so effortlessly into expediency? Throughout their lives they had to turn on, then off, then on again different accents, cadences, senses of humor, sensibilities, the way they walked, their entire body language and posture. They are actors, all three.
You can see Obama talk one way in front of a white audience, another way in front of a black audience. You can see him look debonair though reserved at one moment, then fist-bumping and "dusting his shoulder off" alla Jay-Z the next. You can see how easily and (what is quintessentially Obama) how self-righteously he throws off public financing, though he just months earlier pledged to accept it. - He can convince you that he is black. Or he can convince you that he is white. This is the root of his talent. He's honed it his whole life. And now he's transmogrified this skill to convince you that he is presidential, despite having no experience and sometimes questionable positions. Talented, no doubt! But also shifting sand.
His talent is most remarkably on display when he slyly preempts potential criticisms against him by boldly holding them out in plain view, letting people see them and think about them, and thereby making such criticisms boring, "taking the sting out of it" as it were, or sometimes almost magically twisting such criticisms into just one more spice to his candidacy. Talk about "hanging a lantern on your problems!"
May this shtick be his downfall too? Will he hold out America's problems (as he holds out his own) to the public one too many times or too vociferously? America is a proud country. She does not take well to others holding her out. And McCain is a war hero. We are proud of him. We know he is American. And American plays in America. So if Obama is not careful, he could misstep by mistaking his talent for America's. And his name and background do not help his cause, it could onlt help to "other-ize" him. Only time will tell.
Hybrid Vigor
My grandpappy raised fighting cocks in southern Ohio. As a young boy growing up, he'd take me aside and teach me the virtues of the sport and the part which most intrigued him: breeding. He took great pride in breeding fighting cocks. He was most proud of tending three pure bloodlines: the butcher, the hulsey, and the hatch. Why tend three pure bloodlines you might ask? Why not just focus on "the best of breed" fighting cock? That's just it! None of the three were the best. The best fighters invariably came sparking from the colorful, brilliant crossing of any two of these bloodlines. Grandpappy's favorite was crossing the hatch with the hulsey. For whatever reason, such offspring got the piss from one line and the vinegar from the other. Such "kick-starting" of evolution is technically known as heterosis. Grandpappy called it by it's colloquial term: "hybrid vigor." "Son," he'd say, "you'll get the best of both... and a little something extra too!"
Tiger Woods, Jason Kid, Barack Obama, and the liger of Napoleon Dynamite fame... all mixed breeds. Do they have a leg-up? Do they exemplify hybrid vigor? Not necessarily. There is also a tendency in nature that countermands hybrid vigor, namely, "outbreeding depression." For example, a liger (although bigger and more power than either a pure bred lion or tiger) because of it's proportions relative to what a natural habitat demands, would not live long in the wild. Not to mention, it's also sterile. But with regard to Tiger Wood's, there can be no doubt I think, that with him, we indeed got a "little something extra too!"
Tiger Woods, Jason Kid, Barack Obama, and the liger of Napoleon Dynamite fame... all mixed breeds. Do they have a leg-up? Do they exemplify hybrid vigor? Not necessarily. There is also a tendency in nature that countermands hybrid vigor, namely, "outbreeding depression." For example, a liger (although bigger and more power than either a pure bred lion or tiger) because of it's proportions relative to what a natural habitat demands, would not live long in the wild. Not to mention, it's also sterile. But with regard to Tiger Wood's, there can be no doubt I think, that with him, we indeed got a "little something extra too!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)