With accolades to Marvin Gaye (and co-writers Al Cleveland and Obie Benson of the Four Tops), I have to wonder, today, what's goin' on?
I've written before how, purportedly, the British fife and drum corps played a popular British song, The World Turned Upside Down, when Cornwallis (actually, his aide General John O'Hara; Corny feigned illness--a bout of the gout--so he wouldn't have to give his sword to George Washington--ick! How demeaning!) surrendered at Yorktown. Yep, the Americans under Washington defeating the might British army under Cornwallis? The world must have been turned upside down.
And it seems, more and more every day, today's world is turned upside down. I know things are changing, sometimes for the better. That's good. A lot of things need to be changed. Other times I can't at all get my mind around things, what people are thinking, if they are at all.
An op-ed in yesterday's newspaper cited the state of Colorado's continued efforts to ruin the business (the life?) of the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding based on his religious beliefs. The Supremes, in a "narrow victory" ("narrow" in scope only; it was a 7-2 decision) for the baker, ruled in his favor. I won't argue, at least not today, the merits of the baker's case. No, today it's the persistent attacks on him and those who believe like him (or at least attacks intended to intimidate them into submission).
First, and I know I'm likely beating a dead horse, the state of Colorado's efforts are being led by unelected officials. I've written ad nauseum about Big Government, the Deep State. It's not just the rotten politicians and their self-serving interests and actions. It's the bureaucrats who often are accountable to, well, nobody. They make up rules and regulations that often times are not even reviewable by other branches of government, including the courts.
These unelected Colorado officials lost in the Supreme Court, but they continue their assault. In what appears to be a contrived effort, more complaints have been brought against this baker (and those who profess similar religious beliefs). The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has sided with activists seeking to destroy the baker. (Apparently, freedom of religious beliefs is no longer a civil right in Colorado?) There must be a way to rein in these smug, arrogant, self-righteous (There! Did I make my views clear there?) bureaucrats.
Second, and more to my point, is the idiocy of the activists. Complaints, this time, against the baker stem from his refusal to bake other cakes, cakes requested by the activists. One asked him to make a cake with "an image of Satan smoking marijuana." Huh? Yep. The baker refused. But that's not the end. Another request was for "a three-tiered white cake" that included "a large figure of Satan licking a 9-inch black dildo." Oh, and the request continued, "I would like the dildo to be an actual working model that can be turned on......" This has to be fabricated, right? (But not in today's world, where a crucifix placed in a beaker of urine, among other such works, is considered art.)
What to call this? Lunacy? Depravity? Who are these people? What kind of people would order such a cake? Perhaps they thought they were being humorous? Nah, that wasn't it, not at all. Then, when refused, they filed a complaint with a government agency, an unelected government agency. To top it off, the agency accept the complaint and is acting on it.
Why isn't the government, Big Government, investigating people who make such complaints? (Yes, I'm being facetious, but only partially.) At the least, why hasn't every newspaper in the country printed the names of such depraved people? I wonder how their families, neighbors, and co-workers would respond. Noting the continued national slide into depravity/degeneration, maybe they would see the complainants as champions, some sort of heroes/heroines.
I have no problem with asking for a wedding cake to celebrate a gay wedding. That's fine with me. If a gay couple wants to get married, hooray for them. I hope they are happy. I also have no problem with one, due to religious beliefs, refusing to bake such a cake. Go find another baker! This is America! Use your money to fight against what you perceive as prejudice by taking your business elsewhere.
But all this stuff with "a dildo" is too much for me, beyond the Pale, far beyond it. I'd like to interview these complainants. "What kind of people are you?" I'd ask. "How did you even come up with such a thing?" (That's easy to answer. "I found it on the Internet." Besides, with the depraved state of modern creativity in the arts......) "Are you complaining against the refusal to bake a cake with 'Satan' or the refusal to bake a cake with 'a working dildo'?" Of course, is there a difference? Perhaps so, especially if this is an attack on religious freedom.
I can just see their responses to me, their arrogant, self-righteous responses. Again reaching back several decades, Bob Dylan once wrote, "The times they are a-changin'." (Note I said, "wrote," not "sang." That was deliberate.) Yes, they are. But not all of the changes are good.
Friday, December 28, 2018
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
"Is the Country Still Here?"
It is reported that President Calvin Coolidge took a nap each afternoon, even slipping into his midday PJs, while still getting ten hours of sleep each night. Once, he upon wakening from one of those naps, he groggily asked, "Is the country still here?" Assured that it was, did he roll over and snatch a few more zzzzzz?
Funny as that seems, it has been used as fodder by historians (who know better than others; just ask them) to rate Coolidge far down the list of "best Presidents." I've seen him ranked as "low average" to "below average." Candidly, I have an affinity for Cool Cal. We are Amherst College mates, although he was a few years (?) ahead of me. I think he was a far better President than credited. I won't make my case here (perhaps in a later post), but two fairly recent biographies can do that for me. Although some readers don't care for Amity Shales' writing style, I found her book to be very enlightening, especially regarding Coolidge's economic/fiscal philosophies.
But to return to my point, "Is the country still here?" It was. And it still is. There is a valuable lesson there, if only we will heed it. The country is still here.
We don't need these "imperial Presidents." We'll get along just fine without them. Of course, most of the Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to the present would surely disagree. They, no doubt, think the country couldn't do without them.
We don't need this "Big Government." It is pervasive and continues to grow to the detriment of the American people. Last weekend there was an article about a local government that foreclosed on a citizen's rental property over a tax bill of $6.00, that's six dollars, that hadn't been paid. The county then old the house for $24,000. An op-ed urged the outgoing governor of Michigan to issue pardons to some men convicted and sentence to long years in prison although the evidence hardly warranted even a guilty finding. Prosecutors overzealously pushed for convictions, distorted or hiding exculpatory evidence.
Let's look at it another way. Federal regulatory agencies in 2016 issued almost 4,000 rules, most if not all of which have the force of law. By contrast, that same year Congress passed and the President signed 214 laws into effect. That's almost 20 "rules" for every law! And that is the long-term trend. Over the past 20 years or so, about 90,000 federal administrative rules have been issued, while over that same period, barely 4,000 laws have been enacted (on the national level). Granted, only about 20% of the rules are deemed "major" or "significant" based upon how much they cost, but I'd guess those designations depend on who has to abide by them. What about state and local agencies?
Granted, many laws that are passed created agencies to oversee those laws. And, admittedly, we can't expect our legislators to be experts on all or even most of these areas. There is a need for agencies, but the vast number we have? With the power to create rules that have the effect of law? And, the courts have often ruled that the executive and legislative branches can't overrule regulatory rules. (Is that redundant? Heh Heh.) In some instances, even the courts have no jurisdiction over the agencies. Interpretation is left up to the agencies. It didn't take geniuses to figure out that if the rules were clouded in vagueness, the interpreters had free reign.
I understand most folks don't care. Likely, at least directly, most people are not affected by the huge number of rules/regulations. As long as it's the other guy....... But how many millions if not billions of dollars are added to consumer costs, largely hidden costs, because of federal regulatory agencies?
We've heard some of the ridiculous ones. Some states prohibit collecting rain water, for instance to water gardens, claiming rain belongs to the states. You've read about the communities which require kids to procure licenses to have lemonade/Kool-Aid stands. The federal gov't requires small businesses with 100 or more employees to break down and record pay on the bases of gender and ethnicity. The list goes on......
Although I think like Calvin Coolidge, maybe I'm the last one to do so.
[As is becoming usual, please overlook/excuse any typos. I'm getting too old/tired to proofread.]
Funny as that seems, it has been used as fodder by historians (who know better than others; just ask them) to rate Coolidge far down the list of "best Presidents." I've seen him ranked as "low average" to "below average." Candidly, I have an affinity for Cool Cal. We are Amherst College mates, although he was a few years (?) ahead of me. I think he was a far better President than credited. I won't make my case here (perhaps in a later post), but two fairly recent biographies can do that for me. Although some readers don't care for Amity Shales' writing style, I found her book to be very enlightening, especially regarding Coolidge's economic/fiscal philosophies.
But to return to my point, "Is the country still here?" It was. And it still is. There is a valuable lesson there, if only we will heed it. The country is still here.
We don't need these "imperial Presidents." We'll get along just fine without them. Of course, most of the Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to the present would surely disagree. They, no doubt, think the country couldn't do without them.
We don't need this "Big Government." It is pervasive and continues to grow to the detriment of the American people. Last weekend there was an article about a local government that foreclosed on a citizen's rental property over a tax bill of $6.00, that's six dollars, that hadn't been paid. The county then old the house for $24,000. An op-ed urged the outgoing governor of Michigan to issue pardons to some men convicted and sentence to long years in prison although the evidence hardly warranted even a guilty finding. Prosecutors overzealously pushed for convictions, distorted or hiding exculpatory evidence.
Let's look at it another way. Federal regulatory agencies in 2016 issued almost 4,000 rules, most if not all of which have the force of law. By contrast, that same year Congress passed and the President signed 214 laws into effect. That's almost 20 "rules" for every law! And that is the long-term trend. Over the past 20 years or so, about 90,000 federal administrative rules have been issued, while over that same period, barely 4,000 laws have been enacted (on the national level). Granted, only about 20% of the rules are deemed "major" or "significant" based upon how much they cost, but I'd guess those designations depend on who has to abide by them. What about state and local agencies?
Granted, many laws that are passed created agencies to oversee those laws. And, admittedly, we can't expect our legislators to be experts on all or even most of these areas. There is a need for agencies, but the vast number we have? With the power to create rules that have the effect of law? And, the courts have often ruled that the executive and legislative branches can't overrule regulatory rules. (Is that redundant? Heh Heh.) In some instances, even the courts have no jurisdiction over the agencies. Interpretation is left up to the agencies. It didn't take geniuses to figure out that if the rules were clouded in vagueness, the interpreters had free reign.
I understand most folks don't care. Likely, at least directly, most people are not affected by the huge number of rules/regulations. As long as it's the other guy....... But how many millions if not billions of dollars are added to consumer costs, largely hidden costs, because of federal regulatory agencies?
We've heard some of the ridiculous ones. Some states prohibit collecting rain water, for instance to water gardens, claiming rain belongs to the states. You've read about the communities which require kids to procure licenses to have lemonade/Kool-Aid stands. The federal gov't requires small businesses with 100 or more employees to break down and record pay on the bases of gender and ethnicity. The list goes on......
Although I think like Calvin Coolidge, maybe I'm the last one to do so.
[As is becoming usual, please overlook/excuse any typos. I'm getting too old/tired to proofread.]
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Pearl Harbor
"Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the naval and air forces of the empire of Japan......"
This marked the beginning of the speech given by F. Roosevelt to a joint session of Congress asking Congress to declare war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack on December 8.
I may have missed something, but nothing in my newspaper yesterday mentioned the Pearl Harbor attack. I don't think I saw anything as part of the online news blurbs. There might have been an article or more, but I didn't see anything. Maybe I just missed it.
I guess the question remains why the Japanese attacked the US. On face value, it seems pretty stupid. The US had more people, more resources, more money...... Of course, we know the Japanese are not stupid people. In effect, they were gambling. The gamble was we couldn't stomach a war, that we'd fight for a short while and then ask for peace with the Japanese being able to hold on to what they'd conquered.
Throughout the '30s, the US had shown it really lacked a will to fight. The isolationists were, if not dominant, at least a powerful force in US foreign policy. Our response to the invasion of Manchuria (northeast China), with its vast resources to feed the Japanese war industries, was laughable. It was almost as if the US said, "We're going to put a nasty letter in your file!" Later, the invasion of the rest of China and the rape of Nanking brought similar nonresponse. Even when the Japanese attacked one of our naval vessels (USS Panay), resulting in injuries and deaths to US sailors, the American response indicated we really didn't want to risk any fighting. The Japanese determined our will to fight, to enter a war, was minimal.
Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, knew Japan had to win quickly, that a long, protracted war would result in an American win. (He had spent several years in the US, even attending college here--Harvard, I think.)
The Japanese were seeking to build an empire, one that could supply the resources to their resource-starved nation. The US (and to a lesser extent, Britain) potentially stood in the way and had to be removed.
Finally, the USed some ordered sanctions on Japan. (Earlier attempts by the League were largely ineffective; they were sabotaged.) This led to the Japanese attacks in December 1941.
After the war, from prison, Hideki Tojo (War Minister and later Prime Minister) before his execution, wrote that the Japanese were only "defending ourselves." He said that the economic sanctions imposed by the US were "inhuman" and, "For Japan to do nothing would have meant the destruction of our nation." No mention was made of why the US slapped those sanctions on Japan--the invasion and colonization of Manchuria, the attack on mainland China, the rape of Nanking, the creation of what would be called The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (the Japanese Empire in the Pacific and East Asia).
Yamamoto was right, about losing a lengthy war, but wrong in his gamble.
The First World War saw a similar gamble by the Germans. In January 1917, German Chief of Staff von Falkenhayn convinced the Kaiser than Germany could end the war with a resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare. (It began almost two years earlier, but was quickly abandoned when the US voiced vociferous protests.) Wilhelm II had concerns about US entry, but he was convinced that the war would be over, that in effect Britain would be starved into suing for peace, before the Americans could make a difference. The Germans gambled--and lost.
This marked the beginning of the speech given by F. Roosevelt to a joint session of Congress asking Congress to declare war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack on December 8.
I may have missed something, but nothing in my newspaper yesterday mentioned the Pearl Harbor attack. I don't think I saw anything as part of the online news blurbs. There might have been an article or more, but I didn't see anything. Maybe I just missed it.
I guess the question remains why the Japanese attacked the US. On face value, it seems pretty stupid. The US had more people, more resources, more money...... Of course, we know the Japanese are not stupid people. In effect, they were gambling. The gamble was we couldn't stomach a war, that we'd fight for a short while and then ask for peace with the Japanese being able to hold on to what they'd conquered.
Throughout the '30s, the US had shown it really lacked a will to fight. The isolationists were, if not dominant, at least a powerful force in US foreign policy. Our response to the invasion of Manchuria (northeast China), with its vast resources to feed the Japanese war industries, was laughable. It was almost as if the US said, "We're going to put a nasty letter in your file!" Later, the invasion of the rest of China and the rape of Nanking brought similar nonresponse. Even when the Japanese attacked one of our naval vessels (USS Panay), resulting in injuries and deaths to US sailors, the American response indicated we really didn't want to risk any fighting. The Japanese determined our will to fight, to enter a war, was minimal.
Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, knew Japan had to win quickly, that a long, protracted war would result in an American win. (He had spent several years in the US, even attending college here--Harvard, I think.)
The Japanese were seeking to build an empire, one that could supply the resources to their resource-starved nation. The US (and to a lesser extent, Britain) potentially stood in the way and had to be removed.
Finally, the USed some ordered sanctions on Japan. (Earlier attempts by the League were largely ineffective; they were sabotaged.) This led to the Japanese attacks in December 1941.
After the war, from prison, Hideki Tojo (War Minister and later Prime Minister) before his execution, wrote that the Japanese were only "defending ourselves." He said that the economic sanctions imposed by the US were "inhuman" and, "For Japan to do nothing would have meant the destruction of our nation." No mention was made of why the US slapped those sanctions on Japan--the invasion and colonization of Manchuria, the attack on mainland China, the rape of Nanking, the creation of what would be called The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (the Japanese Empire in the Pacific and East Asia).
Yamamoto was right, about losing a lengthy war, but wrong in his gamble.
The First World War saw a similar gamble by the Germans. In January 1917, German Chief of Staff von Falkenhayn convinced the Kaiser than Germany could end the war with a resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare. (It began almost two years earlier, but was quickly abandoned when the US voiced vociferous protests.) Wilhelm II had concerns about US entry, but he was convinced that the war would be over, that in effect Britain would be starved into suing for peace, before the Americans could make a difference. The Germans gambled--and lost.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Hmmm......
Is this yet another sign that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us? A poll commissioned for The Foundation for Liberty and American Greatness revealed that among millennial respondents, 44% believe (I hesitate to use the word "think" because anyone who "believes" this surely isn't "thinking") that Barack Obama had a "bigger impact" on the US than George Washington. That defies my own belief!
Even if one thinks Obama was a good President (I most certainly do not!), he hardly compares with Washington or many others for that matter. I don't know what to make of this. Is it a reflection of the state of history education in our schools? of the students' teachers? of the current media? of sheer ignorance and lack of concern? Of course, what else might one expect of a group only 16% of which can identify what rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?
I once read an essay by Lech Walesa, the head of the Polish union Solidarity. He urged Americans not to take their Bill of Rights for granted. He knew how precious our individual rights were. After all, look at the sacrifices he made attempting to secure what he urged Americans to treasure. He was beaten and imprisoned. His family was threatened and, if I recall correctly, forced into exile in another country. And there was always the fear of what lay ahead from the commies. "'Lech' who?"
There are some other disturbing trends demonstrated in the poll's results, among them ignorance of American history and greatness coupled with a lack of knowledge of the world, past and present.
In a way, perhaps the millennials can't be blamed. They are fed a constant barrage of garbage that is reflected in their views. They hear Bernie Sanders laud socialism and, without knowing a thing about socialism, claim to favor it over capitalism. Yet ask these same ignoramuses about "free enterprise" or private entrepreneurs and they favor them too. Huh? Only one thing can explain that. It's not complimentary.
I was thinking of Catherine t. Great, the Russian Empress of the 18th Century. (I was so moved to think of her following a short e-mail from my Russian history professor at AC.) Catherine bore a strong resemblance, at least in governing style, to Augustus, the first and perhaps greatest of the Roman Emperors. Both were absolute rulers; they weren't democratic/republican (small d and small r) in the least. Yet, in claiming and holding such autocratic authority, both let others think they were in charge. Catherine, whose reign as been called "The Golden Age of the Russian Nobility," allowed the nobles to think they were running Russia or, at least, had the final voice. Augustus allowed the Roman Senate to think it was still in charge, as it had nominally been during most of the almost five centuries of the Republic (different from the Empire). Nope. Catherine and Augustus, in different times and with different methods, held the reins of government in their hands. I wonder if anyone but me things about weird things like that.
Even if one thinks Obama was a good President (I most certainly do not!), he hardly compares with Washington or many others for that matter. I don't know what to make of this. Is it a reflection of the state of history education in our schools? of the students' teachers? of the current media? of sheer ignorance and lack of concern? Of course, what else might one expect of a group only 16% of which can identify what rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?
I once read an essay by Lech Walesa, the head of the Polish union Solidarity. He urged Americans not to take their Bill of Rights for granted. He knew how precious our individual rights were. After all, look at the sacrifices he made attempting to secure what he urged Americans to treasure. He was beaten and imprisoned. His family was threatened and, if I recall correctly, forced into exile in another country. And there was always the fear of what lay ahead from the commies. "'Lech' who?"
There are some other disturbing trends demonstrated in the poll's results, among them ignorance of American history and greatness coupled with a lack of knowledge of the world, past and present.
In a way, perhaps the millennials can't be blamed. They are fed a constant barrage of garbage that is reflected in their views. They hear Bernie Sanders laud socialism and, without knowing a thing about socialism, claim to favor it over capitalism. Yet ask these same ignoramuses about "free enterprise" or private entrepreneurs and they favor them too. Huh? Only one thing can explain that. It's not complimentary.
I was thinking of Catherine t. Great, the Russian Empress of the 18th Century. (I was so moved to think of her following a short e-mail from my Russian history professor at AC.) Catherine bore a strong resemblance, at least in governing style, to Augustus, the first and perhaps greatest of the Roman Emperors. Both were absolute rulers; they weren't democratic/republican (small d and small r) in the least. Yet, in claiming and holding such autocratic authority, both let others think they were in charge. Catherine, whose reign as been called "The Golden Age of the Russian Nobility," allowed the nobles to think they were running Russia or, at least, had the final voice. Augustus allowed the Roman Senate to think it was still in charge, as it had nominally been during most of the almost five centuries of the Republic (different from the Empire). Nope. Catherine and Augustus, in different times and with different methods, held the reins of government in their hands. I wonder if anyone but me things about weird things like that.
Challenges
Several of my yoga instructors frequently tell us to challenge ourselves in our practice, to "challenge without pain." One says, "What doesn't challenge us doesn't change us." They, of course, are mostly speaking of the physical side of yoga. (I suspect they might disagree, that they'd include the spiritual and/or mental aspects of challenge.)
I have thought about this recently, about challenging our mind, our thoughts and ideas. How easy it is to sit back and watch the boob tube all the time. How easy it is to surrender our lives to interest in this sport or that sport. There are places for television watching, for the diversion that sports provides.
Recently, a few of us engaged in an e-mail discussion of the greatest Detroit Tiger of all time. That was fun and worthwhile. In response, I then asked what the greatest candy bar was/is. There's nothing wrong with either or like thing(s). Fun is not always a sin.
But do such "fun" things challenge our thoughts and ideas? To an extent, in certain areas, maybe they do. That's not what I mean here.
It's far easier to believe than it is to challenge. It's become a joke for almost everyone, "It's true. I read/found it on the Internet." Though we laugh at that, many of us subscribe to it. I know I sometimes, perhaps too often, fall into that error. Challenges to our beliefs require effort, thinking. It's not easy to confront what one "believes." What if what we've thought, based our views on, etc. is wrong?
That can be very disconcerting. Sometimes there's the realization that reality has upset our prejudices or at least our preconceived ideas. It's as if we get smacked across the face one day and discover we have arrived at a truth we weren't even looking for, a truth that causes a previous "truth" to tumble.
In many ways, this is where today's education is failing, failing students, failing society. I guess in a way, that's understandable. Teachers and others in the system are no longer allowed to create "microaggressions." Students can't be challenged, oh no. Schools must be "safe places." Or, if the school aren't "safe" themselves, they must provide "safe places" for students who have faced "microaggressions." As Casey Stengel used to say, "You can look it up."
And I agree! Schools, especially colleges and universities, should be safe places. They should be places where ideas of all sorts, good and bad, popular and anathema, old and new, are safe to present and discuss. Instead of burying "ideas that we hate," put them out there where they face scrutiny, that is, challenge. Let students see if the ideas can stand on their own. Even more, let students confront ideas that challenge their own thoughts and beliefs.
I received another pair of Abraham Lincoln socks for Christmas. (Gee, if that keeps up, my Lincoln sock collection will soon surpass my Christmas sock collection, although his neckties have a way to go.) That present led me to reconsider what W.E.B. Dubois once wrote about Lincoln. I've noted this here before, but I often think of this and it bears repeating.
Of the five masters of the 19th Century, "Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable," Dubois wrote. "And I love him not because he was perfect, but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man [Lincoln]. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln."
This is why I admire Lincoln so much. He grew. He grew as a President and he grew as a person. Lincoln did so by challenging his own thoughts. He sought differing opinions. Look no farther than his choice of Cabinet members, his Team of Rivals as Doris Kearns Goodwin put it. Those Cabinet members would force him to confront his ideas--and they did. Sometimes he stuck with what he held. Sometimes, though, he changed his mind. Others had better ideas than he did.
It's not easy to do what Lincoln did. I'm like most others in that regard, finding it easier to believe than to challenge. I should try harder.
Recently, a few of us engaged in an e-mail discussion of the greatest Detroit Tiger of all time. That was fun and worthwhile. In response, I then asked what the greatest candy bar was/is. There's nothing wrong with either or like thing(s). Fun is not always a sin.
But do such "fun" things challenge our thoughts and ideas? To an extent, in certain areas, maybe they do. That's not what I mean here.
It's far easier to believe than it is to challenge. It's become a joke for almost everyone, "It's true. I read/found it on the Internet." Though we laugh at that, many of us subscribe to it. I know I sometimes, perhaps too often, fall into that error. Challenges to our beliefs require effort, thinking. It's not easy to confront what one "believes." What if what we've thought, based our views on, etc. is wrong?
That can be very disconcerting. Sometimes there's the realization that reality has upset our prejudices or at least our preconceived ideas. It's as if we get smacked across the face one day and discover we have arrived at a truth we weren't even looking for, a truth that causes a previous "truth" to tumble.
In many ways, this is where today's education is failing, failing students, failing society. I guess in a way, that's understandable. Teachers and others in the system are no longer allowed to create "microaggressions." Students can't be challenged, oh no. Schools must be "safe places." Or, if the school aren't "safe" themselves, they must provide "safe places" for students who have faced "microaggressions." As Casey Stengel used to say, "You can look it up."
And I agree! Schools, especially colleges and universities, should be safe places. They should be places where ideas of all sorts, good and bad, popular and anathema, old and new, are safe to present and discuss. Instead of burying "ideas that we hate," put them out there where they face scrutiny, that is, challenge. Let students see if the ideas can stand on their own. Even more, let students confront ideas that challenge their own thoughts and beliefs.
I received another pair of Abraham Lincoln socks for Christmas. (Gee, if that keeps up, my Lincoln sock collection will soon surpass my Christmas sock collection, although his neckties have a way to go.) That present led me to reconsider what W.E.B. Dubois once wrote about Lincoln. I've noted this here before, but I often think of this and it bears repeating.
Of the five masters of the 19th Century, "Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable," Dubois wrote. "And I love him not because he was perfect, but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man [Lincoln]. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln."
This is why I admire Lincoln so much. He grew. He grew as a President and he grew as a person. Lincoln did so by challenging his own thoughts. He sought differing opinions. Look no farther than his choice of Cabinet members, his Team of Rivals as Doris Kearns Goodwin put it. Those Cabinet members would force him to confront his ideas--and they did. Sometimes he stuck with what he held. Sometimes, though, he changed his mind. Others had better ideas than he did.
It's not easy to do what Lincoln did. I'm like most others in that regard, finding it easier to believe than to challenge. I should try harder.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
Thucydides
Gee, I hope that title, "Thucydides," doesn't frighten people off......
I'm guessing the name is familiar to most of you. He should be, rightly, called "The Father of History." He's not, of course, because we often don't get it right. Instead, that sobriquet (C'mon, when we get a chance to use words like that, seize it.) has been given to Herodotus.
I don't lose sleep over it, well, not too much sleep, but Herodotus was a fraud. Oh, he wrote history. But if he didn't know things, couldn't find facts, he just made them up. (Hey, that's what Karen tells people I do in class, just make up things. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.) If things couldn't be explained, that is the hows and whys of history, he might well just say something like, "The gods made them do it." (Maybe some of you will remember the Flip Wilson character, "Geraldine," who frequently excused her bad behavior with "The devil made me do it.")
Thucydides, on the other hand, tried to dig up facts and deal with them. That included interpretation, the stuff of history--the hows and whys, not merely the whos, whats, wheres, and whens. If not "The Father of History," he has been called "The First Scientific Historian." His thoughts from 2400 years ago provide some needed insight on our present condition, here in the US.
In describing a civil war which had broken out on one of the Hellenic islands (There was no country Greece, but a confederation or empire of individual city-states, often ferociously independent.), Thucydides wrote of the vengeful passion exhibited against the ruling classes "by those who had in the past been arrogantly oppressed instead of wisely governed." The revolt was by those who were trying to escape their plight of poverty, of being the down-trodden. (Dare I say of being the "deplorables?")
I've written about this before that the overwhelming majority of Trump voters are not racists, are not bigots. Like Thucydides' rebels, they were sick and tired of being the downtrodden. Real or not, their perception was that the US government was not working for them; they saw it working for others, rich (corporations) and poor alike, but not for them. Although they were not the poorest of the poor, many of them saw that the American Dream, as they understood it, was being denied them--and their government was complicit.
Now we are engaged in what has been called "a cold civil war" between factions in the US. Each side has engaged in a fanatical zeal, one in which an attack on the other side is legitimized as an act of self-defense or even self-preservation. Despicable, even illegal behavior is not just excused, but lauded.
To Thucydides, ethics and morality were key components of society. But in his civil war, such were taken out of play. Changing events to change society was required, civil war then, cold civil war now. He cited, too, that to rationalize/legitimize changing events, words had to take on new meanings. Think of Orwell's Animal Farm and how language took on new meanings used to justify changes, often immoral and unethical changes in favor of those in power. If the meanings of words are changed cleverly enough, the concepts of morality and ethics can be maintained, if dishonestly. Think of today's euphemisms for abortion, "reproductive rights" among them.
Cheating, lying, and worse are held up as clever, not shameful, both then and now, while honesty is belittled as simple. BAMN! "By Any Means Necessary!" Rather than being used to improve the society of the people, to make it more just and fair-minded, strategies and tactics are used for the benefits of the parties. (I'm not singling out one party or the other, but indict both Democrats and Establishment Republicans.) Today, each sides seeks arguments, reasonable or otherwise thanks to social media and a compliant Lamestream media, to justify despicable actions. Opponents, often seekers of the truth, are destroyed by both parties. It is they, rather than the political leadership, who are portrayed as displaying deteriorating ethical and moral behavior and, I suppose, character.
No wonder, as Thucydides noted so long ago of the sides in his civil war, our parties and their adherents view each other with suspicion.
Is there a solution? Hmmm...... Thucydides might suggest a return to authentic moral lives, an ethical society. At least that was his recommendation to the Greeks/Hellenes. That didn't seem to work out so well. And, after a pretty long run themselves, the Romans ran into the same trap. (That's not to be confused with "Thucydides' Trap," a somewhat different, if related, concept.) Can we? I don't know. My innate cynicism and pessimism (a slight difference) leads me to doubt. From what I witness in our moral decline--in politics, entertainment, etc.--compounds that doubt. I hope I am wrong.
I'm guessing the name is familiar to most of you. He should be, rightly, called "The Father of History." He's not, of course, because we often don't get it right. Instead, that sobriquet (C'mon, when we get a chance to use words like that, seize it.) has been given to Herodotus.
I don't lose sleep over it, well, not too much sleep, but Herodotus was a fraud. Oh, he wrote history. But if he didn't know things, couldn't find facts, he just made them up. (Hey, that's what Karen tells people I do in class, just make up things. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.) If things couldn't be explained, that is the hows and whys of history, he might well just say something like, "The gods made them do it." (Maybe some of you will remember the Flip Wilson character, "Geraldine," who frequently excused her bad behavior with "The devil made me do it.")
Thucydides, on the other hand, tried to dig up facts and deal with them. That included interpretation, the stuff of history--the hows and whys, not merely the whos, whats, wheres, and whens. If not "The Father of History," he has been called "The First Scientific Historian." His thoughts from 2400 years ago provide some needed insight on our present condition, here in the US.
In describing a civil war which had broken out on one of the Hellenic islands (There was no country Greece, but a confederation or empire of individual city-states, often ferociously independent.), Thucydides wrote of the vengeful passion exhibited against the ruling classes "by those who had in the past been arrogantly oppressed instead of wisely governed." The revolt was by those who were trying to escape their plight of poverty, of being the down-trodden. (Dare I say of being the "deplorables?")
I've written about this before that the overwhelming majority of Trump voters are not racists, are not bigots. Like Thucydides' rebels, they were sick and tired of being the downtrodden. Real or not, their perception was that the US government was not working for them; they saw it working for others, rich (corporations) and poor alike, but not for them. Although they were not the poorest of the poor, many of them saw that the American Dream, as they understood it, was being denied them--and their government was complicit.
Now we are engaged in what has been called "a cold civil war" between factions in the US. Each side has engaged in a fanatical zeal, one in which an attack on the other side is legitimized as an act of self-defense or even self-preservation. Despicable, even illegal behavior is not just excused, but lauded.
To Thucydides, ethics and morality were key components of society. But in his civil war, such were taken out of play. Changing events to change society was required, civil war then, cold civil war now. He cited, too, that to rationalize/legitimize changing events, words had to take on new meanings. Think of Orwell's Animal Farm and how language took on new meanings used to justify changes, often immoral and unethical changes in favor of those in power. If the meanings of words are changed cleverly enough, the concepts of morality and ethics can be maintained, if dishonestly. Think of today's euphemisms for abortion, "reproductive rights" among them.
Cheating, lying, and worse are held up as clever, not shameful, both then and now, while honesty is belittled as simple. BAMN! "By Any Means Necessary!" Rather than being used to improve the society of the people, to make it more just and fair-minded, strategies and tactics are used for the benefits of the parties. (I'm not singling out one party or the other, but indict both Democrats and Establishment Republicans.) Today, each sides seeks arguments, reasonable or otherwise thanks to social media and a compliant Lamestream media, to justify despicable actions. Opponents, often seekers of the truth, are destroyed by both parties. It is they, rather than the political leadership, who are portrayed as displaying deteriorating ethical and moral behavior and, I suppose, character.
No wonder, as Thucydides noted so long ago of the sides in his civil war, our parties and their adherents view each other with suspicion.
Is there a solution? Hmmm...... Thucydides might suggest a return to authentic moral lives, an ethical society. At least that was his recommendation to the Greeks/Hellenes. That didn't seem to work out so well. And, after a pretty long run themselves, the Romans ran into the same trap. (That's not to be confused with "Thucydides' Trap," a somewhat different, if related, concept.) Can we? I don't know. My innate cynicism and pessimism (a slight difference) leads me to doubt. From what I witness in our moral decline--in politics, entertainment, etc.--compounds that doubt. I hope I am wrong.
Friday, November 16, 2018
Modern Society
Here's something to ponder. What are the things you remember most fondly in your life? These can include moments with family and friends. What memories do you treasure most? Of what are you most proud? On your death bed, what will you remember?
I'm sure there are going to be different answers to this. I would likely bet on one thing, though. None of anyone's choices would include electronics--computers, video games, or even television or the movies.
Just before the priest comes in for last rites, I doubt I'll say, "Boy, I really remember that one episode of Charlie's Angels!" How many will recall "I really crushed everyone in Grand Theft Auto!" (No, that's not a typo. It's not really a question.) The list of things that won't be among what we'll remember from our lives is lengthy.
So, then, why do so many, particularly those younger folks, but not exclusively them, spend so much time watching television and movies, playing video games, etc.? If it were only the younger crowd, such might be chalked up to youthful indiscretions, that they haven't yet realized what is really important in life. (No, scoring high in Fortnight--?--is not a major accomplishment. If someone believes that...... No, nobody, deep down, really thinks that, do they?)
Similarly, what events have had major significance in your life? What, for better or worse, factors changed your life, pushing you in one direction or another? My guess is that video games, television shows, movies weren't among your candidates. Perhaps, if you were inspired by (or even won!) something like American Idol, maybe...... Did anyone ever watch The Andy Griffith Show and say, "When I grow up, I want to be just like Barney Fife or Gomer Pyle?"
Although I watch very, very little television (Karen can go on an out-of-town weekend shopping trip, leaving on Thur eve ad returning late Sun and she'll more often than not find the boob tube on the same station she left it three days earlier.), I understand the diversion movies, television, and even video games can provide. In our times of often complete lunacy? Yes, I understand the diversion factor. But why do so many folks let these activities dominate their lives?
And, perhaps I am mistaken. Maybe some people, on their death beds, will recall, "Remember how I dominated withe Mario Brothers?" or "Boy, watching Survivor was a highlight of my life." I don't think so, but, again, in our times of often complete lunacy, I could be wrong.
I'm sure there are going to be different answers to this. I would likely bet on one thing, though. None of anyone's choices would include electronics--computers, video games, or even television or the movies.
Just before the priest comes in for last rites, I doubt I'll say, "Boy, I really remember that one episode of Charlie's Angels!" How many will recall "I really crushed everyone in Grand Theft Auto!" (No, that's not a typo. It's not really a question.) The list of things that won't be among what we'll remember from our lives is lengthy.
So, then, why do so many, particularly those younger folks, but not exclusively them, spend so much time watching television and movies, playing video games, etc.? If it were only the younger crowd, such might be chalked up to youthful indiscretions, that they haven't yet realized what is really important in life. (No, scoring high in Fortnight--?--is not a major accomplishment. If someone believes that...... No, nobody, deep down, really thinks that, do they?)
Similarly, what events have had major significance in your life? What, for better or worse, factors changed your life, pushing you in one direction or another? My guess is that video games, television shows, movies weren't among your candidates. Perhaps, if you were inspired by (or even won!) something like American Idol, maybe...... Did anyone ever watch The Andy Griffith Show and say, "When I grow up, I want to be just like Barney Fife or Gomer Pyle?"
Although I watch very, very little television (Karen can go on an out-of-town weekend shopping trip, leaving on Thur eve ad returning late Sun and she'll more often than not find the boob tube on the same station she left it three days earlier.), I understand the diversion movies, television, and even video games can provide. In our times of often complete lunacy? Yes, I understand the diversion factor. But why do so many folks let these activities dominate their lives?
And, perhaps I am mistaken. Maybe some people, on their death beds, will recall, "Remember how I dominated withe Mario Brothers?" or "Boy, watching Survivor was a highlight of my life." I don't think so, but, again, in our times of often complete lunacy, I could be wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
