Couch versus Sofa

The words we use in America (or the USA, or just the US, if you insist) are in a deplorable state.  I'm old, and my days is almost done, as Enid Blyton would say, so my level of concern for these things is pretty low, but in the interest of exactness and precision, it makes sense to clarify the meaning of words, when there is ambiguity.

For decades, American have used the words couch and sofa interchangeably.  I think that they ought to mean different things.  But we could use them interchangeably, because using them that way doesn't really do a lot of harm.  I'm going to describe what I think should be how we use them, and my reasoning, and you can take it or leave it.

Many years ago, when affluent men had large, private offices in their homes, it was customary for them to have an upholstered bench along one wall.  At one end was a section, about 18 inches, that was hinged, and could be raised, so that either the person whose office it was, or a patient, could take a nap on it, or even sleep on it overnight.  They were broader than the typical bench; not quite as wide as a single bed, but say three feet wide, and with a moderately soft cushion on which you could get comfortable.  These are couches.  You could, as I said, sleep on them comfortably.  Notably, couches would not have backs, but would have the raised--or raiseable--section at one end, sort of like a chaise.  A chaise would have that portion permanently raised, whereas a couch could be made completely flat if desired.

A sofa is quite a different thing; it is something like an armchair designed for three people, more or less.  Also, it would have a back, and arms.  Also, the seat surface need not be completely horizontal, but angled back like a bucket seat, in which case the seat back would also be slightly reclined.

What most families have in front of the TV is a sofa.  What you have to lie on when you're being psychoanalyzed, is a couch.  Consider that if the seat of a sofa happened to be angled, it would not be comfortable to sleep on.  In contrast, a couch, being a glorified bench, would not have that problem, and indeed one of its functions is precisely to be available for sleeping on.

Well, if any of my readers have been accustomed to using these words in a different way, and find it difficult to conform to my suggested uses, I will not be offended if you do it your way.  I feel that if you have two words, and the distinction between them begins to fade, you have lost a word, and made two words stand for the same thing.  Sometimes this is progress; other times, this is the opposite.

Arch

P.S. I recognize that some illustrations would make this much clearer; I will attempt to persuade the family illustrator to provide some helpful artwork.

About "Profiles in Ignorance""

I read the book Profiles in Ignorance.  It was tough going because it really wasn't a laugh a minute; it was a groan a second.

The followers of trump may have felt that they elected him because he was smart.  But they elected him because he was an outsider, and they did not trust the Washington bureaucracy, which (it seemed to the rank and file of the Republican Party) was often putting in place rules and procedures that were a nuisance.  After all, Trump was often firing these big time players on his TV show, so he could do that very well.  The general belief about Trump's cleverness was from Trump's own statements.  No one in the history of the presidency claimed his own cleverness more than Trump did.

But the real attraction of DJT was his regular guy next door vocabulary, his repetitious speech, and the anti-intellectualism of trump himself.  He could not get his head around why we could not bleach viruses out of people's lungs.  Why we could not be tougher on Iran.  Why we couldn't be nicer to those Saudi princes.

(To be continued.)

Popularity of Christianity

In the last century, John Lennon of the Beatles got a lot of hate when he said that they (The Beatles) were more popular than Jesus Christ.  It may have been true, based on the statistics, but Christians are annoyed by this kind of statement regardless of any truth there may be in it.

In the last few days, a CBS News website has been reporting an opinion that in a decade or so, Christianity may not be the majority religion in the USA.  (I don't know whether that prediction counts the Roman Catholics among the Christians--which in my opinion they should--but this time, I expect a little less hate than with John Lennon.)  Christian leaders, some of whom have been drawn to Christian Leadership because of the fame and the financial rewards, have caused the faithful to be disillusioned with their message.  Hordes of former Christians have left organized religion, and sometimes begun to call themselves atheists, or simply said that they belong to no specific religion or denomination.

Even being an atheist, I believe there is still a philosophical role for Christianity to play.  For years, Christian leaders--for their own inscrutable reasons--downplayed the messages in the Sermon on the Mount, and in most of the parables, to focus on a certain defensive attitude towards the religion.  It is more important to defend the religion, they say, than to turn the other cheek.  It is more important, according to some of these leaders, to keep the Leadership in private jets, than to give to the poor.  It is more important, according to some of these leaders, to elect political leaders who support the church, than to elect those whose agendas include helping the poor and the indigent.  I think it is time now, for new church leaders to come forward, who teach the gospel, and the true spirit of the gospel.

Because of the cynicism of our age, there will be few who heed the urging to charity, to the other-centeredness that Jesus taught.  Many will say: Jesus helps those who help themselves.  Many will say: Charity begins at home; we must first help the Christian Leaders, and the money will trickle down to the poor and needy.  But those who are inclined to adopt Christian morality, the Sermon on the Mount, who feel a sense of responsibility to oppose the economics which ensures that some families earn enormous wealth, while other families can hardly exist (after all, the political philosophy of the USA seems to support the view that the extraction of anything the traffic will allow is fine) those of us who abhor this economics that supports those who already have more than they need, we have no philosophical home.  Where can a family turn, so that its children are surrounded with those who feel that they have an obligation to look after their fellow-man, and not just their fellow-family-members?

It is not the habit of atheists to get together on Sundays (or any days, for that matter), to take a holiday from the usual cynicism they find at work.  We don't have feasts, we don't have gatherings--at least I don't think we do; we don't get together enough for me to find out.  We don't have big weddings (but my wife and I did; it was sort of a party!) we don't have big funerals (though when my close friend died a couple of years ago, his former colleagues got together, to reminisce about all his great characteristics.  And there was a lot of food!), atheism is not a social thing.  It could be, I suppose.

Perhaps these mega-churches should fade away.  Some of them are probably doing some good, but a lot of them seem focused on spewing hate against The Left, which is trying to rein in the greed of big businesses, on spewing hate against other religions.  Occasionally, I suspect, spewing hate against the Catholics, and the Pope.  And now: spewing hate against same-sex couples, and anyone in the LGBTQ++ spectrum, and proponents of unisex toilet facilities.  Are there churches that spew hate against electric cars?  I would like to know, so that I can shower ridicule upon them.  I promise to be very gentle.

Arch