The media, effectively controlled by only a few entities, channels the public discussion in a manner that those elites want. We don't really talk about the things that matter. We fight petty fights over our chairs on the Titanic.
Most people don't even think about this, and are in denial.
Those who do think about it join the group in denial and just escape into sports and entertainment. People feel: "Life has become unmanageable, so I am just going to carve out what brief happiness I can."
Is that what we want our children and children's children to ask about? "What were you doing when it went bad?" they will ask us. "What did you do to try to make it better or fight the good fight?" Do we really want to have to say to them..."Nothing"?
Monday, September 13, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
How About No Head Start?
Today, I am here to recommend the entire column of John Rosemond from 8/17/2010 (see at www.rosemond.com). It concerns America's fixation with preschooling, "getting a head start," and other general nonsense. Here's a sample, but the entire column should be mandatory reading for all Americans, not just parents:
"In the 1950s, prior to the onset of one failed education 'reform' initiative after
another, America's literacy rate was at an all-time high. It's interesting to note
that with rare exception we early Boomers were not taught to read until first grade.
Typically, our mothers made no effort whatsoever to teach us any literacy skills
during our preschool years. Rather, they taught us to pay attention to women and
do what women told us to do-the two skills most essential to early academic achievement."
Now, while it is important to teach respect for women, I might have some other things to say about his last statement there, but the overall thought seems golden to me.
"In the 1950s, prior to the onset of one failed education 'reform' initiative after
another, America's literacy rate was at an all-time high. It's interesting to note
that with rare exception we early Boomers were not taught to read until first grade.
Typically, our mothers made no effort whatsoever to teach us any literacy skills
during our preschool years. Rather, they taught us to pay attention to women and
do what women told us to do-the two skills most essential to early academic achievement."
Now, while it is important to teach respect for women, I might have some other things to say about his last statement there, but the overall thought seems golden to me.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Lack of Historical Sexual Perspective
In our quest to "save" our children (see another post here), we have lost perspective. A woman in CA is facing criminal charges for sex with two teenage boys. Historically, boys often "came of age" with older women.
Historically, it came down to puberty. When puberty arrived, it was no longer molestation, and certainly not a crime, for marriage, sex, childbirth, etc. to occur. Ever read the book Founding Mothers? Many of them were 14-16 years old, and often married to much older men to boot. And of course, one doesn't have to reach far in the Bible to find a 14 year old married to a much older man.
The age of the older one is not so much the issue, it is our fixation on "protecting" the younger one. We need all the protection in the world for those who have not entered puberty. We need less for those who have. Our laws and our system make little distinction.
This continues the pattern of how we do so many things that retard true maturity. It is almost like we are afraid for our children to grow up, or to transition to adults. Is it the desire for control? Wanting to have OUR form of love, to satisfy OUR form of the extended parental-child dependency? We are doing them no favors by being that way. Yes, it IS understandable to feel heartache that they grow up and transition out of their dependency and heavily interlinked stage, because we love them and want to spend precious time with them (which, in our time-maniacal culture, we probably do too little of, and so we are heavily laden with guilt and remorse). But it is selfish and harming to keep them in that stage too long.
People often say the words "they may be physically maturing, but they aren't mentally/emotionally ready." Nope, they probably aren't. Maturity responds to what is asked of it. In most respects, we aren't asking much. People of the 1700s matured fast because it was expected. They weren't babied, overprotected, or sheltered in some parental/societal artificial cocoon that disconnected them from reality.
Historically, it came down to puberty. When puberty arrived, it was no longer molestation, and certainly not a crime, for marriage, sex, childbirth, etc. to occur. Ever read the book Founding Mothers? Many of them were 14-16 years old, and often married to much older men to boot. And of course, one doesn't have to reach far in the Bible to find a 14 year old married to a much older man.
The age of the older one is not so much the issue, it is our fixation on "protecting" the younger one. We need all the protection in the world for those who have not entered puberty. We need less for those who have. Our laws and our system make little distinction.
This continues the pattern of how we do so many things that retard true maturity. It is almost like we are afraid for our children to grow up, or to transition to adults. Is it the desire for control? Wanting to have OUR form of love, to satisfy OUR form of the extended parental-child dependency? We are doing them no favors by being that way. Yes, it IS understandable to feel heartache that they grow up and transition out of their dependency and heavily interlinked stage, because we love them and want to spend precious time with them (which, in our time-maniacal culture, we probably do too little of, and so we are heavily laden with guilt and remorse). But it is selfish and harming to keep them in that stage too long.
People often say the words "they may be physically maturing, but they aren't mentally/emotionally ready." Nope, they probably aren't. Maturity responds to what is asked of it. In most respects, we aren't asking much. People of the 1700s matured fast because it was expected. They weren't babied, overprotected, or sheltered in some parental/societal artificial cocoon that disconnected them from reality.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Disorganized Religion
Anne Rice, the famous author of the wildly popular “Interview With A Vampire,” and other novels, says she is done with Christianity. "For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out," she said on her Facebook page this week. “I remain committed to Christ as always, but not to being 'Christian' or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to 'belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else."
Her comments reminded me a bit of Edward Gibbon’s comments on the nature of early Christians, which has been romanticized by many, but who held (at least in the latter stages of the Roman Empire) many of the same qualities that Rice cites above.
With Christianity as organized religion facing stiff challenges from, among other things, materialism, time-mania, entertainment obsession, jadedness, disconnection, and apathy, not to mention questions about Biblical accuracy/applicability and a surging Islam, what is its likely future? Will its central tenets of the written example of Jesus remain, and the rest be modified or even discarded? Will it transform into something the present day would not recognize? Will it itself resurge? What is its likely progression through history? And what of the central monotheistic nature and connectedness of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which to an alien from another world would seem like one religion with 3 main divisions and many sub-divisions?
I’m not sure which, if any, of those questions can be addressed and in what fashion. They are just my musings for today! :)
Her comments reminded me a bit of Edward Gibbon’s comments on the nature of early Christians, which has been romanticized by many, but who held (at least in the latter stages of the Roman Empire) many of the same qualities that Rice cites above.
With Christianity as organized religion facing stiff challenges from, among other things, materialism, time-mania, entertainment obsession, jadedness, disconnection, and apathy, not to mention questions about Biblical accuracy/applicability and a surging Islam, what is its likely future? Will its central tenets of the written example of Jesus remain, and the rest be modified or even discarded? Will it transform into something the present day would not recognize? Will it itself resurge? What is its likely progression through history? And what of the central monotheistic nature and connectedness of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which to an alien from another world would seem like one religion with 3 main divisions and many sub-divisions?
I’m not sure which, if any, of those questions can be addressed and in what fashion. They are just my musings for today! :)
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
I'm a Vet and I Lost It Yesterday
Yesterday, I was walking out of a store wearing a t-shirt with a military logo on it. An overweight girl and her apparent boyfriend, who was also overweight, were walking up to the store. They looked at my shirt and she asked me if I had ever been in the military. “Yes,” I replied, stopping. She then asked me if I had ever gone overseas, “to war.” “Yes,” I said again.
“I could never go and do all that,” she said. “Me, either,” her apparent boyfriend added.
This was the too-many-th time I had heard that from too many someones. “You’re not willing or able to defend your country!” I said in a loud voice, and walked off, muttering like some crazy coot: “We have become a degenerate people. Our ancestors would disown us.”
I know that not many serve these days (probably one of the problems), and that even those who might want to often don’t qualify for a host of reasons (another one of the problems). I suppose the girl and guy meant what they said as a sign of respect and awe, and that I became just a weird jerk to them by the way I acted. But those words they said have become a pattern I have heard far too much. People thank me and others for our service, and I appreciate their words, but they almost say it with a fearful relief that someone else did it, that at least someone COULD AND WOULD do it. People of all political stripes say they “love” their country, and they want to enjoy their “freedoms,” but “couldn’t imagine” doing what I and others have done. They don’t want to serve their country, and sure as hell couldn’t imagine defending it, especially not where they might be killed. With so few willing and able to defend this nation, how can we not be planting the seeds of our fall?
“I could never go and do all that,” she said. “Me, either,” her apparent boyfriend added.
This was the too-many-th time I had heard that from too many someones. “You’re not willing or able to defend your country!” I said in a loud voice, and walked off, muttering like some crazy coot: “We have become a degenerate people. Our ancestors would disown us.”
I know that not many serve these days (probably one of the problems), and that even those who might want to often don’t qualify for a host of reasons (another one of the problems). I suppose the girl and guy meant what they said as a sign of respect and awe, and that I became just a weird jerk to them by the way I acted. But those words they said have become a pattern I have heard far too much. People thank me and others for our service, and I appreciate their words, but they almost say it with a fearful relief that someone else did it, that at least someone COULD AND WOULD do it. People of all political stripes say they “love” their country, and they want to enjoy their “freedoms,” but “couldn’t imagine” doing what I and others have done. They don’t want to serve their country, and sure as hell couldn’t imagine defending it, especially not where they might be killed. With so few willing and able to defend this nation, how can we not be planting the seeds of our fall?
The Shinier Side of the Coin
As a historian as well as political scientist, I am aware (but perhaps not keenly enough!) that some things have certainly improved. Here’s my list of things that I will keep adding to as time goes on (readers’ additional suggestions welcomed!):
1. Regardless of covert prejudice, there is less overt prejudice in our society, and easier intermingling of people of all different races, creeds, colors, gender, etc., and with this toleration and even welcoming, more opportunities for those than before.
2. Much technology has made our lives potentially more convenient (whether we have filled that convenience with other things is another matter!).
3. The generational divide is not as keen (I am aware that there are some drawbacks to this as well).
4. Entertainment possibilities are greater than ever (same caveat as 3 above).
5. Varieties of food are greater than ever, and awareness and appreciation of those foods as well.
6. There are a LOT of good books and magazines (and blogs!) to read (whether there are a lot of GREAT books and magazines and blogs is a matter of taste).
7. Travel is more possible than ever.
8. There are lots more fun ways to keep fit.
9. Communication is easier than ever.
10. We know a lot more of what works and what doesn’t work.
11. Desired information is often easily at hand.
12. As a human race, we appear to be less warlike than we once were.
13. Air Conditioning (even though, interestingly enough, drawbacks here as well).
14. Conception Control (some think there can be drawbacks here as well).
1. Regardless of covert prejudice, there is less overt prejudice in our society, and easier intermingling of people of all different races, creeds, colors, gender, etc., and with this toleration and even welcoming, more opportunities for those than before.
2. Much technology has made our lives potentially more convenient (whether we have filled that convenience with other things is another matter!).
3. The generational divide is not as keen (I am aware that there are some drawbacks to this as well).
4. Entertainment possibilities are greater than ever (same caveat as 3 above).
5. Varieties of food are greater than ever, and awareness and appreciation of those foods as well.
6. There are a LOT of good books and magazines (and blogs!) to read (whether there are a lot of GREAT books and magazines and blogs is a matter of taste).
7. Travel is more possible than ever.
8. There are lots more fun ways to keep fit.
9. Communication is easier than ever.
10. We know a lot more of what works and what doesn’t work.
11. Desired information is often easily at hand.
12. As a human race, we appear to be less warlike than we once were.
13. Air Conditioning (even though, interestingly enough, drawbacks here as well).
14. Conception Control (some think there can be drawbacks here as well).
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Economists
From The Associated Press, 29 November 2009
“In 1982, as now, headlines were bleak. Many economists were forecasting a long, anemic recovery. The usual engines of job growth seemed idled. The U.S. was losing its industrial edge to an emerging Japan. People were hoarding gold. The downturn was called the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Sound familiar?
Yet all the grim warnings turned out to be misplaced. By 1984, the economy was humming. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide. One of the longest economic expansions in U.S. history was under way, lasting for nearly two decades — with a few bumps.
Right now, economic policymakers are unsure of the road ahead and they lack a good map.”
Their view hasn’t changed a great deal since then.
It is hard to say whether they, and their sycophantic media allies, really believe that, or that is just what they are SUPPOSED to say, to appear to be the calming voices of reason and perspective. What these maybe thinly informed or deceptively palliative folks do by this though, is give the perception of abysmal ignorance and appraisal abilities. Because still focusing on the “usual indicators” doesn’t take into account that we had relatively little debt and trade deficit at the start of the Reagan era. Now we’ve had nearly 30 years of MASSIVE debts, massive trade deficits, and misbalance of payments. We are appreciably weaker.
Here’s the conversation we’ll be hearing from new powers if we don’t deal with reality VERY soon, with big changes: “You arrogantly, ignorantly, and stupidly thought yourselves immune to economic reality. You weren’t. It might have been delayed, but now it is come. Twist in your misery; you brought it mostly on yourselves.”
Because these economists, who we have worshipped like they run some plainly predictive hard science that can deliver the manna, don’t really know (as they occasionally admit): Greenspan, Bernanke, none of them. It is not a science, and they are struggling in the semi-dark. We need to quit listening to them so much; we look a bit like superstitious ancients readily awaiting for the pantheistic cleric to deliver the pronouncement as he examines the entrails for clues! Virtually no one is out there questioning economists’ often faulty assumptions, and only a few question their predictions. These economists plug their figures into models with delusional assumptions, and then dismiss anything (like environmental or social impact) that can’t fit their model! And their prescriptions largely benefit the plutocrats only anyway, and merely placate briefly (at best) everyone else.
It’s not that they haven’t made great strides in many areas, they have. It’s that we’ve elevated them to quasi-godhood, and that’s wrong.
I have a fair amount of confidence in and respect for the pronouncements of many academic economists. I am deeply skeptical of the pronouncements of most corporate and even government economists. It all seems to me to come down to…who are they serving?
“In 1982, as now, headlines were bleak. Many economists were forecasting a long, anemic recovery. The usual engines of job growth seemed idled. The U.S. was losing its industrial edge to an emerging Japan. People were hoarding gold. The downturn was called the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Sound familiar?
Yet all the grim warnings turned out to be misplaced. By 1984, the economy was humming. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide. One of the longest economic expansions in U.S. history was under way, lasting for nearly two decades — with a few bumps.
Right now, economic policymakers are unsure of the road ahead and they lack a good map.”
Their view hasn’t changed a great deal since then.
It is hard to say whether they, and their sycophantic media allies, really believe that, or that is just what they are SUPPOSED to say, to appear to be the calming voices of reason and perspective. What these maybe thinly informed or deceptively palliative folks do by this though, is give the perception of abysmal ignorance and appraisal abilities. Because still focusing on the “usual indicators” doesn’t take into account that we had relatively little debt and trade deficit at the start of the Reagan era. Now we’ve had nearly 30 years of MASSIVE debts, massive trade deficits, and misbalance of payments. We are appreciably weaker.
Here’s the conversation we’ll be hearing from new powers if we don’t deal with reality VERY soon, with big changes: “You arrogantly, ignorantly, and stupidly thought yourselves immune to economic reality. You weren’t. It might have been delayed, but now it is come. Twist in your misery; you brought it mostly on yourselves.”
Because these economists, who we have worshipped like they run some plainly predictive hard science that can deliver the manna, don’t really know (as they occasionally admit): Greenspan, Bernanke, none of them. It is not a science, and they are struggling in the semi-dark. We need to quit listening to them so much; we look a bit like superstitious ancients readily awaiting for the pantheistic cleric to deliver the pronouncement as he examines the entrails for clues! Virtually no one is out there questioning economists’ often faulty assumptions, and only a few question their predictions. These economists plug their figures into models with delusional assumptions, and then dismiss anything (like environmental or social impact) that can’t fit their model! And their prescriptions largely benefit the plutocrats only anyway, and merely placate briefly (at best) everyone else.
It’s not that they haven’t made great strides in many areas, they have. It’s that we’ve elevated them to quasi-godhood, and that’s wrong.
I have a fair amount of confidence in and respect for the pronouncements of many academic economists. I am deeply skeptical of the pronouncements of most corporate and even government economists. It all seems to me to come down to…who are they serving?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)