Professor J,
I was taken aback at the brevity of your previous post. I trust that all is well.
Did you think I thought Capitalism a perfect system? No system, economic or otherwise, can ever be so. Although didn't Rand point out that it hasn't actually been tried anywhere, really? So perhaps we've never seen an authentic version to use for comparison. No organization, system, or institution is ever going to be able to solve some of the problems you name because you cannot legislate or regulate the heart of man. (A Biblical world view leads me to expect that while one system may work better than another, they are designed and utilized by fallible individuals and thus all hopelessly flawed.) You simply cannot make someone honest or trustworthy. How to legislate greed out of existence? How to make people want to do the right thing instead of the easy thing? All that can be done is to make them pay after the damage is done; we'll see how that turns out with BP. We can only hope that other oil (and chemical, etc.) companies are watching carefully and taking note of just how badly it could go.
Isn't some of this the result of regulation and our inability to drill where the oil is most accessible? The dream of course is to get off of oil altogether but we are still years from that so what to do in the interim? You make a good point that total lack of regulation can lead to excessive exploitation, but which is worse? They both seem equally problematic, dangerous even, and whatever thin line of balance exists somewhere in the middle cannot be theoretically worked out but would be found by a painful process of trial and error. Those who are looking to their own short term best interest will invariably find a way to make the most of, or get around, either extreme.
Perhaps the system wrecking itself and repairing itself is the way it ought to work. Is it possible that real Capitalism would work like building muscle? Working and tearing, letting it rest and repair, on and on until strength and the correction of faults is the result?
Chomsky's comments: In the spirit of full disclosure, my first reaction upon reading those comments was " How condescending." I think he's "reaching for the simplistic" at the other end of the spectrum. The things he names that he thinks are the impetus for the anger are indeed things that went awry badly and caused so many of the problems we see now. I agree with him if he is talking about a general feeling of frustration among the populace. His relating the anger of the TEA party members to that and comparing what he hears from them to Nazi mobs, however I take issue with. I find it very interesting that the assumption on the "left" (you used it first :)) is always that the anger is a result of anything except them being angry over the loss of individual freedom and crushing debt that will be dumped on future generations. He hints that they don't really know what they are angry about, which may be true in some cases (my toxic cocktail at work), but he has lumped the entire movement together and demeaned it under the guise of understanding it. If by "state capitalism," he means an over-reaching government whose subsidizing of big business is responsible for much of the system failure, then he is probably right on the money. ;) The prospect of slavery, whether in chains made of debt, centralized power, hopelessness, or anything else, does, in fact make some of us very angry and as you know, strikes terror in the heart of a certain Libertarian housewife.
"Corporations have no big view or commonality with the larger society." Mostly true, but did you see the stories about the new Panera Bread opening in St. Louis? It's working on the honor system, allowing people who can afford to pay more to take up the slack for those who can't quite afford it that day. (A charming idea when individuals CHOOSE to do it;, not so when a government forces it upon people). I had a problem with the former CEO's use of the term "giving back," which subtly implies that one person's ingenuity and hard work have robbed someone else of something, or that he should in some way feel guilty about it, but I otherwise found his plan innovative and inspiring. I'm always fascinated by unusual business models and love that company anyway, so I'm watching to see how it goes over.
No, I haven't read "The White". I'll add it to my very loooong list. :)
Gatto: The Prussian goals for public education were the real point. [Keep prodding me to be specific, perhaps eventually I'll catch on. :)] I do like much of what he says, but I think it mostly applies to the K-12 system where there is little choice about anything unless parents can afford private school. (Even then you are just paying for a different set of rules and means of control) At the university level there is more freedom. You get to decide where, when, and how to continue your education even if it takes years and includes long gaps. As I've mentioned before, I agree with Gatto on some things (I do like his style,) and disagree with him on others.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Branches About Clarity
Before we start this post, thought it would be good to restate CFP Marty Kelman's words: “Wouldn’t it be great to be able to debate any issue with others on an intellectual level and for everybody to be open to sound information that could influence their opinions? And get involved in their community and make it as better place?”
Yes, your toxic cocktail expresses it superbly.
The sea of laws do choke out liberty. Any excessive complication drags down any society too. Even a fair number of lawyers agree.
Well, my good woman, there’s a touch of polemic and emotional grafting in you about good ol’ capitalism, isn’t there? LOL There probably ISN’T any system “better” than it right now, especially if you allow for its many modified versions (the hybrid models that exist in various degrees throughout the world, including here). Yet it would be extremely presumptive to think that nothing better is CONCEIVABLE, especially when considering its inherent precepts.
Ron Paul is correct about how the corporatism grafting onto capitalism has been a very unsymbiotic parasite. But removing it (and it needs removing, desperately) would not magically solve excessive greed or corruption. And even the “pure” market is anything but pure. The Friedman/Chicago school model, seemingly a path to truly free markets and freedom-enhancing capitalism without strictures (“get rid of the regulation!”), is in reality a pathway to excessive exploitation. You don’t need to read The Shock Doctrine or Blowback to understand that. The wealthy and connected few have nearly always manipulated and twisted. Combine that with the emotional propensity of people as decision makers, and you get a system that can wreck itself (although it can also repair itself, albeit at great pain and cost, but at least is always itching to repair itself, one of its great strengths).
Corporatism’s success at getting the law to treat a corporation as a person when convenient and as something else when not, has been damaging. This latest Supreme Court decision saying that corporations have a right to free speech, and that restricting their injection of money into political campaigns is an infringement of that, is just the most recent and greatest lightning jolt.
What better demonstration of who holds real and meaningful power? While the Dim Dems wish they could fire people and hold them accountable about the oil spill, the Repubs who had gutted what little oversight and accountability there was before try to dodge and deflect and turn it all around. And both of them are in reality mere pawns, because for all our politicians’ fuming over oil executives, Heyward and the others still do whatever they want, say whatever they want, and even try to throw it back on the little guy. It is the same pattern as the Wall Street meltdown. Big corporations, especially multinational ones, hold the power. Indeed, they are so arrogantly confident in that, they often don’t even pretend to affect a façade.
Did you see Noam Chomsky’s comments recently? “I’m just old enough to have heard a number of Hitler’s speeches on the radio,” he said, “and I have a memory of the texture and the tone of the cheering mobs, and I have the dread sense of the dark clouds of fascism gathering. The level of anger and fear is like nothing I can compare in my lifetime.” Brings to mind what German anti-Nazi Martin Niemoller is purported to have said.
He goes on to say that the attitudes of the Tea Party folks “are understandable. For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy,” and so class resentment has arisen. “The bankers, who are primarily responsible for the crisis, are now reveling in record bonuses while official unemployment is around 10 percent and unemployment in the manufacturing sector is at Depression-era levels. The colossal toll of the institutional crimes of state capitalism” is what is fueling “the indignation and rage of those cast aside.” And perhaps the fear of those not yet! Wonder what many of the members of the Tea Party would think to know that a top left-wing (to use one of those lazy directional terms I don’t like) intellectual agrees with much of what they say!
Our excessively individualistic culture leaves no time for self-inventory or evaluation of “enough” because every nuclear family is essentially on its own. Ever read “The White”? It’s a novel about a real person, Mary Jemison. It shows nicely the difference between two pretty alien (to each other) cultures. Native Americans used to take the winters to work on themselves and their relationships. Modern Americans only rarely take significant time to work on themselves or theirs, and even then it’s usually because a crisis in it has arisen.
Yes, corporations have commoditized labor into an expendable “factor” to help the bottom line. Workers are like Boxer in Animal Farm. Because corporations have no big view or commonality with the larger society, and few loyalties except to themselves, they don’t realize or don’t care that workers are also consumers. Henry Ford, for all his faults, at least tried to tell his fellow bigwigs in the 20s that most of the time your workers have to be able to afford what they are making or doing, or the system will crash. Most of his fellows didn’t listen.
Those corporations also usually don’t care about the mental or emotional health of their workers (well, the good ones do, but they are increasingly rare), although they often care about their physical health because that can affect the bottom line (our culture makes few substantive connections between mental, emotional, and physical health, btw). And their expressed concerns for family time are just the meaningless phraseology to make it appear as though they care, so that you will be deceived long enough to be trapped.
I read the link you provided separately on education. Although there is a fair amount of academic disagreement with Gatto (almost sounds like “John Galt” doesn’t it? LOL), and he makes some extrapolations and represents them as data, there’s little doubt that the education system became increasingly (and stiflingly) standardized and all that entails for being “educated.” Clever title for his book by the way. I’m not quite as critical of the PhD process (although there’s plenty to criticize there!), but I could obviously be biased! :)
And my apologies, dear Madame, for being inexcusably brief on these important subjects today.
Yes, your toxic cocktail expresses it superbly.
The sea of laws do choke out liberty. Any excessive complication drags down any society too. Even a fair number of lawyers agree.
Well, my good woman, there’s a touch of polemic and emotional grafting in you about good ol’ capitalism, isn’t there? LOL There probably ISN’T any system “better” than it right now, especially if you allow for its many modified versions (the hybrid models that exist in various degrees throughout the world, including here). Yet it would be extremely presumptive to think that nothing better is CONCEIVABLE, especially when considering its inherent precepts.
Ron Paul is correct about how the corporatism grafting onto capitalism has been a very unsymbiotic parasite. But removing it (and it needs removing, desperately) would not magically solve excessive greed or corruption. And even the “pure” market is anything but pure. The Friedman/Chicago school model, seemingly a path to truly free markets and freedom-enhancing capitalism without strictures (“get rid of the regulation!”), is in reality a pathway to excessive exploitation. You don’t need to read The Shock Doctrine or Blowback to understand that. The wealthy and connected few have nearly always manipulated and twisted. Combine that with the emotional propensity of people as decision makers, and you get a system that can wreck itself (although it can also repair itself, albeit at great pain and cost, but at least is always itching to repair itself, one of its great strengths).
Corporatism’s success at getting the law to treat a corporation as a person when convenient and as something else when not, has been damaging. This latest Supreme Court decision saying that corporations have a right to free speech, and that restricting their injection of money into political campaigns is an infringement of that, is just the most recent and greatest lightning jolt.
What better demonstration of who holds real and meaningful power? While the Dim Dems wish they could fire people and hold them accountable about the oil spill, the Repubs who had gutted what little oversight and accountability there was before try to dodge and deflect and turn it all around. And both of them are in reality mere pawns, because for all our politicians’ fuming over oil executives, Heyward and the others still do whatever they want, say whatever they want, and even try to throw it back on the little guy. It is the same pattern as the Wall Street meltdown. Big corporations, especially multinational ones, hold the power. Indeed, they are so arrogantly confident in that, they often don’t even pretend to affect a façade.
Did you see Noam Chomsky’s comments recently? “I’m just old enough to have heard a number of Hitler’s speeches on the radio,” he said, “and I have a memory of the texture and the tone of the cheering mobs, and I have the dread sense of the dark clouds of fascism gathering. The level of anger and fear is like nothing I can compare in my lifetime.” Brings to mind what German anti-Nazi Martin Niemoller is purported to have said.
He goes on to say that the attitudes of the Tea Party folks “are understandable. For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy,” and so class resentment has arisen. “The bankers, who are primarily responsible for the crisis, are now reveling in record bonuses while official unemployment is around 10 percent and unemployment in the manufacturing sector is at Depression-era levels. The colossal toll of the institutional crimes of state capitalism” is what is fueling “the indignation and rage of those cast aside.” And perhaps the fear of those not yet! Wonder what many of the members of the Tea Party would think to know that a top left-wing (to use one of those lazy directional terms I don’t like) intellectual agrees with much of what they say!
Our excessively individualistic culture leaves no time for self-inventory or evaluation of “enough” because every nuclear family is essentially on its own. Ever read “The White”? It’s a novel about a real person, Mary Jemison. It shows nicely the difference between two pretty alien (to each other) cultures. Native Americans used to take the winters to work on themselves and their relationships. Modern Americans only rarely take significant time to work on themselves or theirs, and even then it’s usually because a crisis in it has arisen.
Yes, corporations have commoditized labor into an expendable “factor” to help the bottom line. Workers are like Boxer in Animal Farm. Because corporations have no big view or commonality with the larger society, and few loyalties except to themselves, they don’t realize or don’t care that workers are also consumers. Henry Ford, for all his faults, at least tried to tell his fellow bigwigs in the 20s that most of the time your workers have to be able to afford what they are making or doing, or the system will crash. Most of his fellows didn’t listen.
Those corporations also usually don’t care about the mental or emotional health of their workers (well, the good ones do, but they are increasingly rare), although they often care about their physical health because that can affect the bottom line (our culture makes few substantive connections between mental, emotional, and physical health, btw). And their expressed concerns for family time are just the meaningless phraseology to make it appear as though they care, so that you will be deceived long enough to be trapped.
I read the link you provided separately on education. Although there is a fair amount of academic disagreement with Gatto (almost sounds like “John Galt” doesn’t it? LOL), and he makes some extrapolations and represents them as data, there’s little doubt that the education system became increasingly (and stiflingly) standardized and all that entails for being “educated.” Clever title for his book by the way. I’m not quite as critical of the PhD process (although there’s plenty to criticize there!), but I could obviously be biased! :)
And my apologies, dear Madame, for being inexcusably brief on these important subjects today.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The Neverending Search for Clarity
Professor J,
I agree with you about the anger. What do you think is the source of it? Do you think that most people know that something is wrong but lack the information to see clearly the root problems? Is it that people are so dissatisfied and disappointed with their own lives that they are constantly battling an internal anger, much of it directed at themselves? Is it an overwhelming sense of hopelessness combined with feeling powerless to understand the complexities of the issues and imagine that any real solutions are out there, leaving them awash in frustration and ire? Or is it a toxic cocktail of all of that and then some?
The idea of a "rollback" you propose is a good fantasy. :) It reminds me of an idea of Richard Maybury proposed in his book, "Whatever Happened to Justice?" (an excellent resource for young people). Part of what he addresses in that book is the sea of laws we are adrift in and how they choke out liberty. His idea is to repeal several laws for every new law that gets passed.
Even with all its problems, what system is better than Capitalism? Ron Paul makes a very good observation that much of what people blame on our economic system isn't actually flaws in Capitalism, but what he calls corporatism: Big business in bed with government, and all the negatives that ensue--unchecked greed, rampant corruption, political paybacks. etc. It's not the system, but how it is regulated, manipulated, and twisted by the few with the most power; that is the real problem.
As for no one being able to define "enough," you are so right. Materialism, gluttony, drunkenness--I find it interesting that the 10 Commandments are all directed at individuals and families, not society in general. A collection of self controlled, kind, thoughtful individuals create a community that reflects those attributes. But it takes time to do some self inventory and uncover real desires and needs, and how to do that when everyone is being asked to work longer and longer hours? Many corporations are not replacing employees that quit or retire. The attitude is, "You'll all just have to work harder" (with the implication that one should be happy just to have a job in this economy). These attitudes and practices come at a high cost to the mental and physical health of employees, and threaten the survival of any kind of family life, the essence of which is time spent together to form healthy relationships. Such an impediment to corporate America's bottom line...that pesky personal life.
"Isn’t the primary purpose of education for the masses, as defined in practice by the wealthy elites, to produce proficient and diligent WORKERS, not critically thinking CITIZENS?" Yes Professor, exactly! But the public system that was created was spawned with that very idea in mind. They are, once again, interwoven. The taxpayers pay for it, the public tolerates it, even though for the amount of money spent the results are far below what would be tolerated as a return on an investment in any business setting. Tracing the thing back shows that the result is fairly close to what was intended: obedience, subordination, and being conditioned to the collective life. In those respects, some of its early proponents might consider it quite the success.
I agree with you about the anger. What do you think is the source of it? Do you think that most people know that something is wrong but lack the information to see clearly the root problems? Is it that people are so dissatisfied and disappointed with their own lives that they are constantly battling an internal anger, much of it directed at themselves? Is it an overwhelming sense of hopelessness combined with feeling powerless to understand the complexities of the issues and imagine that any real solutions are out there, leaving them awash in frustration and ire? Or is it a toxic cocktail of all of that and then some?
The idea of a "rollback" you propose is a good fantasy. :) It reminds me of an idea of Richard Maybury proposed in his book, "Whatever Happened to Justice?" (an excellent resource for young people). Part of what he addresses in that book is the sea of laws we are adrift in and how they choke out liberty. His idea is to repeal several laws for every new law that gets passed.
Even with all its problems, what system is better than Capitalism? Ron Paul makes a very good observation that much of what people blame on our economic system isn't actually flaws in Capitalism, but what he calls corporatism: Big business in bed with government, and all the negatives that ensue--unchecked greed, rampant corruption, political paybacks. etc. It's not the system, but how it is regulated, manipulated, and twisted by the few with the most power; that is the real problem.
As for no one being able to define "enough," you are so right. Materialism, gluttony, drunkenness--I find it interesting that the 10 Commandments are all directed at individuals and families, not society in general. A collection of self controlled, kind, thoughtful individuals create a community that reflects those attributes. But it takes time to do some self inventory and uncover real desires and needs, and how to do that when everyone is being asked to work longer and longer hours? Many corporations are not replacing employees that quit or retire. The attitude is, "You'll all just have to work harder" (with the implication that one should be happy just to have a job in this economy). These attitudes and practices come at a high cost to the mental and physical health of employees, and threaten the survival of any kind of family life, the essence of which is time spent together to form healthy relationships. Such an impediment to corporate America's bottom line...that pesky personal life.
"Isn’t the primary purpose of education for the masses, as defined in practice by the wealthy elites, to produce proficient and diligent WORKERS, not critically thinking CITIZENS?" Yes Professor, exactly! But the public system that was created was spawned with that very idea in mind. They are, once again, interwoven. The taxpayers pay for it, the public tolerates it, even though for the amount of money spent the results are far below what would be tolerated as a return on an investment in any business setting. Tracing the thing back shows that the result is fairly close to what was intended: obedience, subordination, and being conditioned to the collective life. In those respects, some of its early proponents might consider it quite the success.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Re: In Search of Clarity, Part 1B
Madame M,
Enormous amounts of productivity potential are wasted on nonproductive things like tax accounting. Our large and ponderous tax system on the one hand tries to be so exactingly “fair” and “equitable,” but actually largely only creates slogging, twisting, complexity. On the other, it becomes a giveaway store to whatever special interest gets the ear (or purse) of our out-of-control law “makers.” Not just taxes though—all measures of laws, rules, regulations, directives, expectations, etc. (little matter, how well intended), are excessive. Complexity leads to more nonproductive time and effort and expense to first figure out or interpret the complexity (or pay someone to), and then more unproductive time to figure out what to do (compensate legally or evade illegally a la BP) about it, which leads to compensating laws, rules, adjustments, etc., which only leads to more complexity, which only leads to more…. And of course, all this leads to more economically nonproducing (or even parasitical) lawyers (although not all lawyers are those, just…many!). After all, we have more lawyers here than the rest of the world combined, and too large a majority of the key figures in government (by its very nature, a nonproducer) are lawyers.
We are gushing forth a storm of cascading propellants toward system failure. How curious a people we are, to see what and even how things can’t continue on this path, yet stay on it. I guess we are no different in that from many civilizations of the past.
I both agree and disagree on the “ever increasing taxes.” Depends on who you are and what part of the system you can command, influence, or use information on. Taxes have actually decreased for a great many (often from direct rate decreases or exemptions or loopholes), although hidden taxes certainly plague many as well. We are too similar to Rome, which increasingly found itself with people of means who did not want to support the society (for various reasons, a few of them even good ones), and the public revenue increasingly starved to the point of decay. Inward focused afflictions of affluence contributed to visionless undercutting of their civilization. The gulf between the so called elites and the otherwise productive general working population became enormous, even without factoring in slavery.
I agree with Ronald Reagan’s statement of “what you want to see less of, tax.” The tax code needs to do away with taxes on economically and environmentally sound production. It should instead switch to taxes that punish environmentally, economically, or public health harming practices and/or to taxes that support commonweal practices. For instance, the tobacco tax increase enacted relatively recently. Something like that is not really a tax in the sense that many citizens do not pay it and can avoid it. But in the zealous “anti-tax” mania, those sorts of things are included in deceptive statistics that don’t merit most reality, and furthermore, give the impression that American taxation is crushing, when it’s not (we have a long history of this exaggeration, going back to colonial times). Oppressive taxation is often more that people don’t agree with how their money is being spent, or, that they are disconnected enough to not connect how it is spent to benefit them.
Just one example of private exploitation:
Untenable (and unconsidered) precepts are accepted in teaching (especially privately and throughout the culture) without question, but when examined (although never are) seem rather absurd. Such as the fundamental precepts of capitalism: Endless accumulation, and unlimited growth in a limited space (ever notice how everything is ALWAYS about growth?).
Capitalism is considered, unthinkingly, as the ultimate system (that one is not even POSSIBLE in the future to be better) with no significant flaws, or, if there are such flaws, nothing can or should be done about them. This of course is a largely unexamined precept on most levels, except sometimes against the anti-human nature system failures of the past (empires, socialist-authoritarianisms, etc.).
In such precepts, the powerful reward themselves by excessive greed (because neither our culture nor its individuals can define “enough,” about anything) without concern for the larger society. Labor is exploited without thought, to the ultimate degree, and commoditized. Capital and inside information are made supreme. Merit and expertise become only secondary at best.
Congruent with this is an exploited work ethic. Work constantly. Live to work, not work to live. Become used up and discarded, at cost to self, family, community, society.
To continue on in a slightly different vein: The BP spill is a consequence, STILL not fully appreciated, of unexamined precepts. Here is willful addiction to a substance that is 1) toxic to humans and most life, in all phases, from extraction to refining to transport to use to “disposal,” 2) finite, it will run out, 3) is concentrated in places where people who often want to damage or destroy us control those places, and which we have to pay them large sums to purchase, and other large sums to protect, thus essentially paying to destroy ourselves in many senses of the word, 4) may be contributing to extremely harmful world-changing events, and that 5) we have NO PLAN and few committed resources or efforts to move quickly away from being addicted. Our descendents will wonder how on earth we idgit brains could be their ancestors!
Now I follow what you mean by intellectual tyranny in the public education sphere! Yet private exploitation and public overlap sometimes. For instance, isn’t the primary purpose of education for the masses, as defined in practice by the wealthy elites, to produce proficient and diligent WORKERS, not critically thinking CITIZENS?
The elements of CONTROL you so aptly describe are stifling tools that we humans keep reaching for over and over despite their ultimate failures in so many instances. ATTEMPTED control to remake the world to our liking seems our perpetual overriding obsession. When Mao said “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand thoughts flourish,” he didn’t really mean it; he only wanted to root out the thinkers who could threaten his orthodoxy and control. Although no Mao, the current crop in American education “top” circles often crush real thinking—and often in supposed service to critical thinking!
Your encounter with the haute pseudo-intellectual is unfortunately all too common in our society of credentialism (certificatism, degreeism, whatever b.s—that’s a pun!--ism); your son is largely accurate about that. While it is true the willfully ignorant, uninformed, and idiocracy crowd infuriate with their wildly inaccurate and forcibly stated “opinions,” it is also true, as you demonstrate, that much of the “educated” really…aren’t. My dad always told me, “Never fear the intelligentsia; they think. Fear the near-intelligentsia, those who think they think.” My dad never even made it a full year of college, but he was more insightful and clear-thinking than many degreed people I know.
I like the Oathkeepers’ goals and ten things, assuming they are not being used for some hidden purpose of course.
Enormous amounts of productivity potential are wasted on nonproductive things like tax accounting. Our large and ponderous tax system on the one hand tries to be so exactingly “fair” and “equitable,” but actually largely only creates slogging, twisting, complexity. On the other, it becomes a giveaway store to whatever special interest gets the ear (or purse) of our out-of-control law “makers.” Not just taxes though—all measures of laws, rules, regulations, directives, expectations, etc. (little matter, how well intended), are excessive. Complexity leads to more nonproductive time and effort and expense to first figure out or interpret the complexity (or pay someone to), and then more unproductive time to figure out what to do (compensate legally or evade illegally a la BP) about it, which leads to compensating laws, rules, adjustments, etc., which only leads to more complexity, which only leads to more…. And of course, all this leads to more economically nonproducing (or even parasitical) lawyers (although not all lawyers are those, just…many!). After all, we have more lawyers here than the rest of the world combined, and too large a majority of the key figures in government (by its very nature, a nonproducer) are lawyers.
We are gushing forth a storm of cascading propellants toward system failure. How curious a people we are, to see what and even how things can’t continue on this path, yet stay on it. I guess we are no different in that from many civilizations of the past.
I both agree and disagree on the “ever increasing taxes.” Depends on who you are and what part of the system you can command, influence, or use information on. Taxes have actually decreased for a great many (often from direct rate decreases or exemptions or loopholes), although hidden taxes certainly plague many as well. We are too similar to Rome, which increasingly found itself with people of means who did not want to support the society (for various reasons, a few of them even good ones), and the public revenue increasingly starved to the point of decay. Inward focused afflictions of affluence contributed to visionless undercutting of their civilization. The gulf between the so called elites and the otherwise productive general working population became enormous, even without factoring in slavery.
I agree with Ronald Reagan’s statement of “what you want to see less of, tax.” The tax code needs to do away with taxes on economically and environmentally sound production. It should instead switch to taxes that punish environmentally, economically, or public health harming practices and/or to taxes that support commonweal practices. For instance, the tobacco tax increase enacted relatively recently. Something like that is not really a tax in the sense that many citizens do not pay it and can avoid it. But in the zealous “anti-tax” mania, those sorts of things are included in deceptive statistics that don’t merit most reality, and furthermore, give the impression that American taxation is crushing, when it’s not (we have a long history of this exaggeration, going back to colonial times). Oppressive taxation is often more that people don’t agree with how their money is being spent, or, that they are disconnected enough to not connect how it is spent to benefit them.
Just one example of private exploitation:
Untenable (and unconsidered) precepts are accepted in teaching (especially privately and throughout the culture) without question, but when examined (although never are) seem rather absurd. Such as the fundamental precepts of capitalism: Endless accumulation, and unlimited growth in a limited space (ever notice how everything is ALWAYS about growth?).
Capitalism is considered, unthinkingly, as the ultimate system (that one is not even POSSIBLE in the future to be better) with no significant flaws, or, if there are such flaws, nothing can or should be done about them. This of course is a largely unexamined precept on most levels, except sometimes against the anti-human nature system failures of the past (empires, socialist-authoritarianisms, etc.).
In such precepts, the powerful reward themselves by excessive greed (because neither our culture nor its individuals can define “enough,” about anything) without concern for the larger society. Labor is exploited without thought, to the ultimate degree, and commoditized. Capital and inside information are made supreme. Merit and expertise become only secondary at best.
Congruent with this is an exploited work ethic. Work constantly. Live to work, not work to live. Become used up and discarded, at cost to self, family, community, society.
To continue on in a slightly different vein: The BP spill is a consequence, STILL not fully appreciated, of unexamined precepts. Here is willful addiction to a substance that is 1) toxic to humans and most life, in all phases, from extraction to refining to transport to use to “disposal,” 2) finite, it will run out, 3) is concentrated in places where people who often want to damage or destroy us control those places, and which we have to pay them large sums to purchase, and other large sums to protect, thus essentially paying to destroy ourselves in many senses of the word, 4) may be contributing to extremely harmful world-changing events, and that 5) we have NO PLAN and few committed resources or efforts to move quickly away from being addicted. Our descendents will wonder how on earth we idgit brains could be their ancestors!
Now I follow what you mean by intellectual tyranny in the public education sphere! Yet private exploitation and public overlap sometimes. For instance, isn’t the primary purpose of education for the masses, as defined in practice by the wealthy elites, to produce proficient and diligent WORKERS, not critically thinking CITIZENS?
The elements of CONTROL you so aptly describe are stifling tools that we humans keep reaching for over and over despite their ultimate failures in so many instances. ATTEMPTED control to remake the world to our liking seems our perpetual overriding obsession. When Mao said “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand thoughts flourish,” he didn’t really mean it; he only wanted to root out the thinkers who could threaten his orthodoxy and control. Although no Mao, the current crop in American education “top” circles often crush real thinking—and often in supposed service to critical thinking!
Your encounter with the haute pseudo-intellectual is unfortunately all too common in our society of credentialism (certificatism, degreeism, whatever b.s—that’s a pun!--ism); your son is largely accurate about that. While it is true the willfully ignorant, uninformed, and idiocracy crowd infuriate with their wildly inaccurate and forcibly stated “opinions,” it is also true, as you demonstrate, that much of the “educated” really…aren’t. My dad always told me, “Never fear the intelligentsia; they think. Fear the near-intelligentsia, those who think they think.” My dad never even made it a full year of college, but he was more insightful and clear-thinking than many degreed people I know.
I like the Oathkeepers’ goals and ten things, assuming they are not being used for some hidden purpose of course.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Re: In Search of Clarity, Part 1A
Madame M,
How correct you are about our parochialism, and it is making us poor evaluators and decision makers. I am speaking of the rabid, unthinking—no, mindless—anger. The people (like their anger) are discomfited (extremely), but at vague or porous people and things. People decide emotionally. Emotionally bent minds are already made up. Facts are irrelevant. Examples:
“Obama’s responsible for the BP spill.” Absurd. “Examine your premises.” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged)
“Republicans are responsible for nothing getting done on ‘problems’.” (a premise within a premise!) Absurd. “Examine your premises.”
Here’s another example: There are a bit too many of those in a typical government unit who are petty and so visionless. And despite those in leadership trying to do things to help them, they’ll yet bite the hand that feeds. They’ll destroy themselves, their livelihoods, their family, in their blind and narrow selfishness that then leads to some sort of backlash against that government unit (closing, transfer, resizing, etc). These disgrunteds do not want to believe the usual reality that the majority of leaders (albeit, perhaps no longer the vast majority) are just like the majority of people, neither corrupt nor incompetent nor wholly selfish (although maybe partially selfish). That is, those leaders behave as pragmatically as they can. It’s just that we have created a system that makes it very difficult—sometimes near impossible—for them to do what’s truly best.
Another aspect of government employees: Seemingly NONE of them realize they are economic NONPRODUCERS, living off the sacrifices of PRODUCERS. I can hear my dad, a cattleman of many years: “They’re on the trough.”
Responding to another point of yours: We have certainly created an effeminate society. That effeminate society reaches out for thugishness in petty rebellion. And also in the search for some masculine touch (however sadly misplaced) and dangerous adventure.
No, couldn’t imagine having used it in presence of my mother. Even in the presence of my father, it would have been most unusual.
Sense of abandon and lack of care for the future is the most telling to me. The others have some time to correct, but the one is inherently, acceleratingly, destructive.
There is a sense of sacrifice that can be appealed to in cutting entitlements of all sorts, but no one wants to sacrifice unless they know that most or all are REALLY making a sacrifice. There is so much deceit, much of it quite subtle, and yet people still suspect it, and as such, don’t want to be the patsy making the sacrifice while the (insert moniker here: “fat cats,” “big boys,” “inside crowd,” “connected,” etc.) skate out. So selfishness rules. It is the “tragedy of the commons,” extrapolated to a colossal scale.
Being a history guy, I was actually thinking of “roll back.” Allow me to fantasize here a bit: Rolling back (allowing to function) only government programs that existed at some time of manageable government (1955? 1940? 1925?). I was going to say that in this fantasy Congress by two-thirds majority could put in programs installed since the chosen date, but with things like Medicare it would certainly be no prob getting those super majorities, so not sure about that, as that part couldn’t qualify as fantasy. :) In this fantasy, the money that would be saved would go to paying off our enormous debt and funding the remaining unfunded entitlements still around.
Of course, that’s complete fantasy, although if one merely said that the programs that weren’t around at rollback year would be SUSPENDED until the debt was paid off and the remaining entitlements fully funded, it might move from fantasy to…astronomical long-shot. ;) Regardless, we either face our fundamental contradictions head on, or reality will intervene catastrophically and agonizingly at some point.
I think many of the young know innately they’re largely f’d however things get served up; this may be a reason for the choices (or sometimes lack of) they exhibit. I disagree with my son on a lot of things, but I don’t say much when he says “screw the establishment.” Of course, one day [shudder? :)], his group will BE the establishment, assuming we don’t totally flush things down the drain in the meantime.
Freedom the better payout? Undoubtedly. Whether many young are conscious of it is quite another matter. Too much is taken for granted.
Yep, Amtrak has been mismanaged for years, and the very fact of being beholden to a wildly varying appropriation has also enfeebled. So many opportunities have been lost over time. Immediate draconian cut off of all subsidy might not work either, given its fragility. Pretty much opposite of European and Japanese railroad investment, eh? This is all related to the common good, a topic I will take up further in a future post.
How correct you are about our parochialism, and it is making us poor evaluators and decision makers. I am speaking of the rabid, unthinking—no, mindless—anger. The people (like their anger) are discomfited (extremely), but at vague or porous people and things. People decide emotionally. Emotionally bent minds are already made up. Facts are irrelevant. Examples:
“Obama’s responsible for the BP spill.” Absurd. “Examine your premises.” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged)
“Republicans are responsible for nothing getting done on ‘problems’.” (a premise within a premise!) Absurd. “Examine your premises.”
Here’s another example: There are a bit too many of those in a typical government unit who are petty and so visionless. And despite those in leadership trying to do things to help them, they’ll yet bite the hand that feeds. They’ll destroy themselves, their livelihoods, their family, in their blind and narrow selfishness that then leads to some sort of backlash against that government unit (closing, transfer, resizing, etc). These disgrunteds do not want to believe the usual reality that the majority of leaders (albeit, perhaps no longer the vast majority) are just like the majority of people, neither corrupt nor incompetent nor wholly selfish (although maybe partially selfish). That is, those leaders behave as pragmatically as they can. It’s just that we have created a system that makes it very difficult—sometimes near impossible—for them to do what’s truly best.
Another aspect of government employees: Seemingly NONE of them realize they are economic NONPRODUCERS, living off the sacrifices of PRODUCERS. I can hear my dad, a cattleman of many years: “They’re on the trough.”
Responding to another point of yours: We have certainly created an effeminate society. That effeminate society reaches out for thugishness in petty rebellion. And also in the search for some masculine touch (however sadly misplaced) and dangerous adventure.
No, couldn’t imagine having used it in presence of my mother. Even in the presence of my father, it would have been most unusual.
Sense of abandon and lack of care for the future is the most telling to me. The others have some time to correct, but the one is inherently, acceleratingly, destructive.
There is a sense of sacrifice that can be appealed to in cutting entitlements of all sorts, but no one wants to sacrifice unless they know that most or all are REALLY making a sacrifice. There is so much deceit, much of it quite subtle, and yet people still suspect it, and as such, don’t want to be the patsy making the sacrifice while the (insert moniker here: “fat cats,” “big boys,” “inside crowd,” “connected,” etc.) skate out. So selfishness rules. It is the “tragedy of the commons,” extrapolated to a colossal scale.
Being a history guy, I was actually thinking of “roll back.” Allow me to fantasize here a bit: Rolling back (allowing to function) only government programs that existed at some time of manageable government (1955? 1940? 1925?). I was going to say that in this fantasy Congress by two-thirds majority could put in programs installed since the chosen date, but with things like Medicare it would certainly be no prob getting those super majorities, so not sure about that, as that part couldn’t qualify as fantasy. :) In this fantasy, the money that would be saved would go to paying off our enormous debt and funding the remaining unfunded entitlements still around.
Of course, that’s complete fantasy, although if one merely said that the programs that weren’t around at rollback year would be SUSPENDED until the debt was paid off and the remaining entitlements fully funded, it might move from fantasy to…astronomical long-shot. ;) Regardless, we either face our fundamental contradictions head on, or reality will intervene catastrophically and agonizingly at some point.
I think many of the young know innately they’re largely f’d however things get served up; this may be a reason for the choices (or sometimes lack of) they exhibit. I disagree with my son on a lot of things, but I don’t say much when he says “screw the establishment.” Of course, one day [shudder? :)], his group will BE the establishment, assuming we don’t totally flush things down the drain in the meantime.
Freedom the better payout? Undoubtedly. Whether many young are conscious of it is quite another matter. Too much is taken for granted.
Yep, Amtrak has been mismanaged for years, and the very fact of being beholden to a wildly varying appropriation has also enfeebled. So many opportunities have been lost over time. Immediate draconian cut off of all subsidy might not work either, given its fragility. Pretty much opposite of European and Japanese railroad investment, eh? This is all related to the common good, a topic I will take up further in a future post.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
In Search of Clarity, Part II
Professor J,
As for the history books, I wasn't speaking in terms of textbooks (although aren't even those written from someone's point of view, unless they are just dry lists of facts?), but of the narrative non-fiction and biographies that this woman seemed to be looking for.
I suppose that "private exploitation" could be an equal danger; I was thinking in terms of our public school system. Can you give an example of how it's relevant there? Perhaps I'm thinking too narrowly.
Intellectual tyranny/public authority: I was referring to the public education "provided by" (home school advocates would say "forced upon children by") the state. Compulsory attendance laws, school zoning, and lack of choice for parents in curriculum, are all examples of the authorities imposing their will upon families. The Founders mostly didn't see the need for it, and De Tocqueville was impressed with the level of knowledge of the average American without it. We do see Jefferson mention it, but I'm guessing he didn't have in mind the Prussian model (designed there to thwart critical thinking) we ended up with.
The idea at the time of public schooling providing English for a massive influx of immigrants, as well as partly being driven by the needs of the industrial revolution, is understandable. But if people had known more about the philosophies of those pushing it hardest, I wonder if they would have decided on some other plan for solving those problems.
I would certainly consider the lack of focus in the average American school, on history and especially the great men who established our form of government, to be a form of intellectual tyranny. But in a broader sense, one could say that deciding what people think about and how long they can think about it is a form of control. Of course this is only possible because people mistakenly believe that education is something that must be provided to them by someone else. How often do we hear someone complain that they were denied an education because they didn't get this scholarship or that grant. To my way of thinking, the overriding misconception that knowledge must be imparted in a specific way or by a specific organization (and a unionized one at that) is dangerous.
Recently, in a conversation with a fellow traveler about some current events, I was dismissed out of hand when my response to his question about what my degree was in was that I didn't have one. That Sir, feels very much like intellectual tyranny.
Comment from my son on that: "Mom, no one cares how smart you are or that you've read a lot of books. The only thing that matters is the piece of paper." (Is this what we are teaching?)
I haven't read Hightower but I'm always interested in those who are willing to attack both sides, in an effort to expose truth.
As for the history books, I wasn't speaking in terms of textbooks (although aren't even those written from someone's point of view, unless they are just dry lists of facts?), but of the narrative non-fiction and biographies that this woman seemed to be looking for.
I suppose that "private exploitation" could be an equal danger; I was thinking in terms of our public school system. Can you give an example of how it's relevant there? Perhaps I'm thinking too narrowly.
Intellectual tyranny/public authority: I was referring to the public education "provided by" (home school advocates would say "forced upon children by") the state. Compulsory attendance laws, school zoning, and lack of choice for parents in curriculum, are all examples of the authorities imposing their will upon families. The Founders mostly didn't see the need for it, and De Tocqueville was impressed with the level of knowledge of the average American without it. We do see Jefferson mention it, but I'm guessing he didn't have in mind the Prussian model (designed there to thwart critical thinking) we ended up with.
The idea at the time of public schooling providing English for a massive influx of immigrants, as well as partly being driven by the needs of the industrial revolution, is understandable. But if people had known more about the philosophies of those pushing it hardest, I wonder if they would have decided on some other plan for solving those problems.
I would certainly consider the lack of focus in the average American school, on history and especially the great men who established our form of government, to be a form of intellectual tyranny. But in a broader sense, one could say that deciding what people think about and how long they can think about it is a form of control. Of course this is only possible because people mistakenly believe that education is something that must be provided to them by someone else. How often do we hear someone complain that they were denied an education because they didn't get this scholarship or that grant. To my way of thinking, the overriding misconception that knowledge must be imparted in a specific way or by a specific organization (and a unionized one at that) is dangerous.
Recently, in a conversation with a fellow traveler about some current events, I was dismissed out of hand when my response to his question about what my degree was in was that I didn't have one. That Sir, feels very much like intellectual tyranny.
Comment from my son on that: "Mom, no one cares how smart you are or that you've read a lot of books. The only thing that matters is the piece of paper." (Is this what we are teaching?)
I haven't read Hightower but I'm always interested in those who are willing to attack both sides, in an effort to expose truth.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
In Search of Clarity
Professor J,
Lack of community is indeed a huge problem. How to solve it though, in a society that is so transient, and where technology, while at times a source for sharing and interacting with others, much more often isolates from personal interaction? Yes, I do think that there are, sadly, some who are selfish enough to destroy common interest out of a desire to win at all cost. Can the few who may have clarity be heard over the din of opinionated and near hyperventilating rants from both sides? Things are often opposed ONLY because they come from the other side. Howard Stern sent someone to Harlem during the '08 campaign with a list of McCain stances but attributed them to Obama, then asked people on the street whether they agreed with those policies. They did. As long as it came from their guy. (Around the same time I was in a gas station in MS. where I'm sure that experiment could have been repeated in the reverse with exactly the opposite outcome) Pick a team, then let your thinking, if you have bothered to do any, petrify, while division and selfishness eat away the foundation of society.
Toynbee's 6: Well, those are discouraging aren't they? I am reading an abridgment and they are only briefly outlined though, so "sifting" may be an overstatement. The thing that stood out to me most was in Sense of Promiscuity: the vulgarity and barbarism. Remember when everyone aspired to rise to the class just above them in dress and style and manners? It is so clearly depicted in old movies. But now we see the reverse. The children of the middle and even upper class imitate a sort of thugishness in dress, language, and behavior. The lack of respect toward women and a lack of self respect in women, I find striking. The idea that men would refer to women with the derogatory terms we hear routinely (and in public, not in locker rooms), still astounds me.
Can you expound on which of Toynbee's 6 you think most telling?
My suggestion of starving the beast is of course not something that we are ready for. You are right in saying that no one wants their entitlements cut. From major corporations to the elderly, the sentiment is one of selfishness and greed. I'm reminded of a discussion of cuts that need to be made that I had with an older relative. She agreed with me, but then quickly added "not Social Security though....or Medicare...or prescription drugs."
An idea similar to Jefferson's plan on ending slavery could possibly work. Set a date far enough in the future to allow people to plan, with everyone who depends on these things now have to be dealt with, but how unfair does that sound to the young? Work and pay for these programs that we promised the generation before you, but plan well because you are going to be responsible for yourself? We can only hope that they would think freedom the better payout in the end.
Whenever I take the train to New Orleans, I'm struck by the lack of fresh thinking, thinking that would make Amtrak competitive in the marketplace. A couple of years ago, I happened to be traveling when they were launching a new dining car concept and the train was full of company executives. The price of gasoline was at record high, the economy was tanking; I thought they were missing a prime opportunity to reintroduce the public to train travel, and told them so. I also asked them where the marketing campaign was: "Where are the print ads, and radio and TV spots? Why isn't there great jazz music playing at the station?" I shared with them that when I tell people about traveling on the train, the reaction is that they aren't aware of it at all and that opening a single east/west route in the southeast would cause an explosion in ridership. The response I got from the executives was less than enthusiastic. They listened politely, but I sensed from the glances they gave each other that they were all thinking: to make it profitable would mean losing the government subsidy that keeps it afloat (barely) now (I called them out on that and got no reaction). These suits weren't just risk averse, they were profit averse!
Time and energy isn't wasted just on people and corporations trying to get money from the government. I'm thinking of how much time in meeting with a financial adviser and banker is spent trying to figure out how to protect assets from ever increasing taxes.
The 10 Things you asked about:
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
I like what the founder of Oathkeepers said they want to promote: "Good will, integrity, honesty, civility."
Lack of community is indeed a huge problem. How to solve it though, in a society that is so transient, and where technology, while at times a source for sharing and interacting with others, much more often isolates from personal interaction? Yes, I do think that there are, sadly, some who are selfish enough to destroy common interest out of a desire to win at all cost. Can the few who may have clarity be heard over the din of opinionated and near hyperventilating rants from both sides? Things are often opposed ONLY because they come from the other side. Howard Stern sent someone to Harlem during the '08 campaign with a list of McCain stances but attributed them to Obama, then asked people on the street whether they agreed with those policies. They did. As long as it came from their guy. (Around the same time I was in a gas station in MS. where I'm sure that experiment could have been repeated in the reverse with exactly the opposite outcome) Pick a team, then let your thinking, if you have bothered to do any, petrify, while division and selfishness eat away the foundation of society.
Toynbee's 6: Well, those are discouraging aren't they? I am reading an abridgment and they are only briefly outlined though, so "sifting" may be an overstatement. The thing that stood out to me most was in Sense of Promiscuity: the vulgarity and barbarism. Remember when everyone aspired to rise to the class just above them in dress and style and manners? It is so clearly depicted in old movies. But now we see the reverse. The children of the middle and even upper class imitate a sort of thugishness in dress, language, and behavior. The lack of respect toward women and a lack of self respect in women, I find striking. The idea that men would refer to women with the derogatory terms we hear routinely (and in public, not in locker rooms), still astounds me.
Can you expound on which of Toynbee's 6 you think most telling?
My suggestion of starving the beast is of course not something that we are ready for. You are right in saying that no one wants their entitlements cut. From major corporations to the elderly, the sentiment is one of selfishness and greed. I'm reminded of a discussion of cuts that need to be made that I had with an older relative. She agreed with me, but then quickly added "not Social Security though....or Medicare...or prescription drugs."
An idea similar to Jefferson's plan on ending slavery could possibly work. Set a date far enough in the future to allow people to plan, with everyone who depends on these things now have to be dealt with, but how unfair does that sound to the young? Work and pay for these programs that we promised the generation before you, but plan well because you are going to be responsible for yourself? We can only hope that they would think freedom the better payout in the end.
Whenever I take the train to New Orleans, I'm struck by the lack of fresh thinking, thinking that would make Amtrak competitive in the marketplace. A couple of years ago, I happened to be traveling when they were launching a new dining car concept and the train was full of company executives. The price of gasoline was at record high, the economy was tanking; I thought they were missing a prime opportunity to reintroduce the public to train travel, and told them so. I also asked them where the marketing campaign was: "Where are the print ads, and radio and TV spots? Why isn't there great jazz music playing at the station?" I shared with them that when I tell people about traveling on the train, the reaction is that they aren't aware of it at all and that opening a single east/west route in the southeast would cause an explosion in ridership. The response I got from the executives was less than enthusiastic. They listened politely, but I sensed from the glances they gave each other that they were all thinking: to make it profitable would mean losing the government subsidy that keeps it afloat (barely) now (I called them out on that and got no reaction). These suits weren't just risk averse, they were profit averse!
Time and energy isn't wasted just on people and corporations trying to get money from the government. I'm thinking of how much time in meeting with a financial adviser and banker is spent trying to figure out how to protect assets from ever increasing taxes.
The 10 Things you asked about:
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
I like what the founder of Oathkeepers said they want to promote: "Good will, integrity, honesty, civility."
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Learning ENOUGH from history?
Yes, little groups might keep us from the repressive conformity too often found in the past. Yet there is also the danger of the visionless parochialism and lack of community that helped to unravel Rome. Are we really so blind-narrow-arrogant-selfish as to destroy common interest? And where is clarity? Or are those with clarity shouted down and marginalized? It seems more and more that even a good idea will be opposed merely because it “came from the other side.”
Yes, limited and local to the greatest extent, and accountable, is what the Framers had in mind, although after the Articles of Confederation, they certainly saw the need for the national government to be something more than a vehicle for state preferences. As for the roadblocks, they have been getting weakened for some time. The relatively recent combination of fear/security and tranquilizing surreal-ness has only accelerated the process. Many of the Framers would be surprised to find we have made it this long. Including perhaps this fellow: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
Have you sifted Toynbee’s six evidences for civizational disintegration?
Cultural suicide
Escapism (truancy, he called it)
Sense of drift
Sense of self-loathing disguised as other things
Sense of promiscuity in all facets of life, with an everything goes view
Sense of abandon and lack of care for the future
Starving the monster we have created is not highly practical yet because there is no consensus on how. Everyone wants to cut, but has a pet preference they don’t want to lose. Your mention of entitlements goes far beyond the usual uninformed one of the ghetto mother of 7 on welfare and food stamps and living in govt subsidized housing (really, an infinitesimal part of entitlements). Entitlements means the government trough in ALL its forms, from corporate welfare/subsidization/contracts (corruption, really), to Medicare(less), to “Defense” non-producers (including maybe me now, in a way).
History would say that despair and decay will turn the producers into inefficient or even non-producers. How many intelligent—and otherwise productive—people and businesses spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out how to get “GOVERNMENT “money, as if it was The Sampo (had to bring in that Finnish reference!).
No, I am not aware of such an organization. Years ago, when I taught ROTC cadets, I gave them a test of would they obey orders if the President ordered them to disband Congress? Every one of them said they would. From what you say, it's encouraging to know that unlawful (against the constitution—the highest law) orders would not be obeyed by those officers you mention. What are those 10 things?
If you mean high school history textbooks, I agree with you. If you mean college ones, not as much. If you mean history books in general, not even as much as that. But there is bias in everything, and everyone, no doubt about that. Now, if the sentiment is the desire to think for one’s self, then that is to be applauded (and for the two of us to feel encouraged!).
The incompetent, lazy, or overtasked-into-ineffectiveness teacher who would give such an economics exam is, however, NOT encouraging. Nor the educational system that would produce that “result.”
You have chosen to focus on public authority and not include private exploitation, as was in Toynbee’s statement. Are they not equal dangers? There is an indoctrinating and inoculating and tranquilizing infusion from many of the wealth engines of the powerful that is more exploitative and just as dangerous as the debilitating disconnection of the entitlement sentiment (and all that sentiment’s frilly associated—and divisive, even where unity and appreciation for “diversity” are expressed—effects). At least the latter is recognized by a number of people. The former can barely be articulated, even when it is recognized, which it usually isn’t.
Yet expound more on “intellectual tyranny.” You may be thinking additional things from me and I would like to know/reference!
“Whatever proves necessary will be difficult.” Well said. We should not fear so much or be afraid of pain. It’s a part of life, and pain to achieve something you can be proud of can actually be therapeutic if it doesn’t kill or maim you.
I do my best to sift what is valuable from people like Beck, and leave the excessive. For instance, have you read the progressive/populist Jim Hightower? He says MANY things that need to be said, he speaks truth to power and about power, and is hard on the establishment. He was hard on Bush, and he’s hard on Obama and Washington in general (although probably not as hard as he was on Bush). Yet sometimes he oversimplifies or broadly paints, and we have to then disagree. Being informed is hard work, as you’ve said. No wonder many people don’t bother!
Yes, limited and local to the greatest extent, and accountable, is what the Framers had in mind, although after the Articles of Confederation, they certainly saw the need for the national government to be something more than a vehicle for state preferences. As for the roadblocks, they have been getting weakened for some time. The relatively recent combination of fear/security and tranquilizing surreal-ness has only accelerated the process. Many of the Framers would be surprised to find we have made it this long. Including perhaps this fellow: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
Have you sifted Toynbee’s six evidences for civizational disintegration?
Cultural suicide
Escapism (truancy, he called it)
Sense of drift
Sense of self-loathing disguised as other things
Sense of promiscuity in all facets of life, with an everything goes view
Sense of abandon and lack of care for the future
Starving the monster we have created is not highly practical yet because there is no consensus on how. Everyone wants to cut, but has a pet preference they don’t want to lose. Your mention of entitlements goes far beyond the usual uninformed one of the ghetto mother of 7 on welfare and food stamps and living in govt subsidized housing (really, an infinitesimal part of entitlements). Entitlements means the government trough in ALL its forms, from corporate welfare/subsidization/contracts (corruption, really), to Medicare(less), to “Defense” non-producers (including maybe me now, in a way).
History would say that despair and decay will turn the producers into inefficient or even non-producers. How many intelligent—and otherwise productive—people and businesses spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out how to get “GOVERNMENT “money, as if it was The Sampo (had to bring in that Finnish reference!).
No, I am not aware of such an organization. Years ago, when I taught ROTC cadets, I gave them a test of would they obey orders if the President ordered them to disband Congress? Every one of them said they would. From what you say, it's encouraging to know that unlawful (against the constitution—the highest law) orders would not be obeyed by those officers you mention. What are those 10 things?
If you mean high school history textbooks, I agree with you. If you mean college ones, not as much. If you mean history books in general, not even as much as that. But there is bias in everything, and everyone, no doubt about that. Now, if the sentiment is the desire to think for one’s self, then that is to be applauded (and for the two of us to feel encouraged!).
The incompetent, lazy, or overtasked-into-ineffectiveness teacher who would give such an economics exam is, however, NOT encouraging. Nor the educational system that would produce that “result.”
You have chosen to focus on public authority and not include private exploitation, as was in Toynbee’s statement. Are they not equal dangers? There is an indoctrinating and inoculating and tranquilizing infusion from many of the wealth engines of the powerful that is more exploitative and just as dangerous as the debilitating disconnection of the entitlement sentiment (and all that sentiment’s frilly associated—and divisive, even where unity and appreciation for “diversity” are expressed—effects). At least the latter is recognized by a number of people. The former can barely be articulated, even when it is recognized, which it usually isn’t.
Yet expound more on “intellectual tyranny.” You may be thinking additional things from me and I would like to know/reference!
“Whatever proves necessary will be difficult.” Well said. We should not fear so much or be afraid of pain. It’s a part of life, and pain to achieve something you can be proud of can actually be therapeutic if it doesn’t kill or maim you.
I do my best to sift what is valuable from people like Beck, and leave the excessive. For instance, have you read the progressive/populist Jim Hightower? He says MANY things that need to be said, he speaks truth to power and about power, and is hard on the establishment. He was hard on Bush, and he’s hard on Obama and Washington in general (although probably not as hard as he was on Bush). Yet sometimes he oversimplifies or broadly paints, and we have to then disagree. Being informed is hard work, as you’ve said. No wonder many people don’t bother!
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Intellectual Tyranny: Learning From History, Part II
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." ~ Thomas Jefferson
REAL education must be revived. People are rediscovering history, thanks not only to people like Beck, who are pushing it hard (have you caught his Founders' Fridays?), but because they are awakening to their own lack of knowledge. We cannot get the return to Constitutional ideas that is necessary without the education of the public. I was in the bookstore recently browsing the history section and overheard a woman ask the bookseller for a book on American History "that isn't written from a particular point of view." I had to smile. First because she had the right idea, and second because, of course, no such thing exists.
I've been plodding along through Toynbee and I find his views on public education correct in many regards. From The Breakdown of Civilizations; Failure of Self Determination: "One stumbling block has been the inevitable impoverishment in the results of education when the process is made available for the masses at the cost of being divorced from its traditional cultural background....Our mass-produced intellectual pabulum lacks savour and vitamins."
Interruption for illustrative story: My son and I were discussing some economic theories he was studying in his econ class at his private school. My daughter who attended public school was amazed. "Do you know what we did for an exam grade in my Economics class? We had to sing the theme to 'The Apprentice'!" She has noted many times over the past few years that things he was studying were things that she didn't encounter until she was a junior in college. "Mass-produced intellectual pabulum" indeed.
So many of Toynbee's comments on it are quotable but as you are familiar with him, I'll just add one more:
"Thus, in countries where democratic education has been introduced, the people are in danger of falling under an intellectual tyranny engineered either by private exploitation or by public authority. If the people's souls are to be saved, the only way is to raise the standard of mass education to a degree at which its recipients will be rendered immune against, at any rate, the grosser forms of exploitation and propaganda; and it need hardly be said that this is no easy task."
"INTELLECTUAL TYRANNY ENGINEERED...BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY." There it is. As people begin to realize just how deeply that has taken root and begin to take responsibility for their own education, the tide will turn. It will be a painfully slow process though, and I fear we may not have the luxury of time needed for that method to manifest change. I don't think at this point there is a solution that will be pain free. Whatever proves necessary will be difficult.
I've taken up a lot of space here and not sure I answered your question. If I have misunderstood it let me know. :)
REAL education must be revived. People are rediscovering history, thanks not only to people like Beck, who are pushing it hard (have you caught his Founders' Fridays?), but because they are awakening to their own lack of knowledge. We cannot get the return to Constitutional ideas that is necessary without the education of the public. I was in the bookstore recently browsing the history section and overheard a woman ask the bookseller for a book on American History "that isn't written from a particular point of view." I had to smile. First because she had the right idea, and second because, of course, no such thing exists.
I've been plodding along through Toynbee and I find his views on public education correct in many regards. From The Breakdown of Civilizations; Failure of Self Determination: "One stumbling block has been the inevitable impoverishment in the results of education when the process is made available for the masses at the cost of being divorced from its traditional cultural background....Our mass-produced intellectual pabulum lacks savour and vitamins."
Interruption for illustrative story: My son and I were discussing some economic theories he was studying in his econ class at his private school. My daughter who attended public school was amazed. "Do you know what we did for an exam grade in my Economics class? We had to sing the theme to 'The Apprentice'!" She has noted many times over the past few years that things he was studying were things that she didn't encounter until she was a junior in college. "Mass-produced intellectual pabulum" indeed.
So many of Toynbee's comments on it are quotable but as you are familiar with him, I'll just add one more:
"Thus, in countries where democratic education has been introduced, the people are in danger of falling under an intellectual tyranny engineered either by private exploitation or by public authority. If the people's souls are to be saved, the only way is to raise the standard of mass education to a degree at which its recipients will be rendered immune against, at any rate, the grosser forms of exploitation and propaganda; and it need hardly be said that this is no easy task."
"INTELLECTUAL TYRANNY ENGINEERED...BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY." There it is. As people begin to realize just how deeply that has taken root and begin to take responsibility for their own education, the tide will turn. It will be a painfully slow process though, and I fear we may not have the luxury of time needed for that method to manifest change. I don't think at this point there is a solution that will be pain free. Whatever proves necessary will be difficult.
I've taken up a lot of space here and not sure I answered your question. If I have misunderstood it let me know. :)
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Learning from History
"blogkin"....I like that, sounds very Tolkien! I feel like an opinionated ethereal hobbit. (sans hairy feet) :)
Your reference to the Blue Angels reminded me of an exciting afternoon with my dad many years ago. I'm so jealous!
The diverse groups that you so easily move among are offering you different things that you appreciate. We humans aren't going to find everything we want in one relationship (hence the continual need for friends, mentors, etc. even if we find our "soul mate"). We also aren't going to find it all in one group. The fact that many of THEM seem happily isolated from one another is just further indication of how easy it is for us to form our opinions about important complex issues and never revisit them or try to learn from those with a different perspective who we may disagree with. It takes mental and sometimes emotional energy!
"Everyone cries for cooperation." Ah, but do they really want it? I don't think so. They aren't saying "let me do more for you," or "help me understand why you feel that way." What people generally mean is they want everyone else to cooperate with THEM. It's like demands for more tolerance. People who say that tend to mean that everyone else should be more tolerant of THEIR specific group. It doesn't seem to occur to them that they themselves are often the epitome of intolerance.
I think there is an innate tendency toward a "tribe" mentality. Something in us craves being part of an "us" who is against a "them". Perhaps the human brain is not capable of handling the complexity of all the real connections that exist, so we break it down to what we can manage--our schools, our denominations, our sports teams, etc. We learn from the past that a strong "one mindedness" can be an extremely dangerous thing. Perhaps the little groups we divide up into keep us from doing more real damage than we otherwise would.
Government that is limited, local, and leashed shortly is what the brilliant drafters of our defining documents had in mind, certainly. But those "roadblocks to tyranny" seem to be being pushed aside with alarming frequency and ease. Your question (if I am understanding you correctly) is; should we just let the thing fall apart and pick up the pieces and start over, or take a more proactive approach? The beast cannot have its insatiable appetite curbed under the current conditions. Eventually it will have to be starved into submission, but how?
I cannot envision a scenario where the masses living on entitlements willingly give them up in an effort to facilitate a return to the ideas of self sufficiency and individual liberty which they are wholly unfamiliar with. Even the proposal of such a thing would result in nationwide violence on a scale that would make what is happening in Greece look like a picnic. Are you aware of an organization of active and retired military and law enforcement officers who have listed 10 orders they will not obey, all of which violate the Constitution? Lines are being drawn.
As for "some action, any action," the beast could, I think, be brought sufficiently to heel if a majority of the producers decided to stop paying for the destruction of their own liberty. Ayn Rand would love the John Galt style of that; you've pushed us to the limit and punished us for our success, let's see how you get along without us and our money. There is more likely, however, to be some event that will force things to a head. Either a crisis that those in power use to seal near complete control, or a line which they may cross unaware that it would be the tipping point. The latter would be something that would cause the populace to finally yank hard enough on the bit placed in the mouth of the beast by the Framers to cause it to, however reluctantly, lumber in the direction that "we the people" want it to go. The "something" would be, as you indicate, "painful," but that may just be the price for letting it drift so far from what the Founders left us with.
Your reference to the Blue Angels reminded me of an exciting afternoon with my dad many years ago. I'm so jealous!
The diverse groups that you so easily move among are offering you different things that you appreciate. We humans aren't going to find everything we want in one relationship (hence the continual need for friends, mentors, etc. even if we find our "soul mate"). We also aren't going to find it all in one group. The fact that many of THEM seem happily isolated from one another is just further indication of how easy it is for us to form our opinions about important complex issues and never revisit them or try to learn from those with a different perspective who we may disagree with. It takes mental and sometimes emotional energy!
"Everyone cries for cooperation." Ah, but do they really want it? I don't think so. They aren't saying "let me do more for you," or "help me understand why you feel that way." What people generally mean is they want everyone else to cooperate with THEM. It's like demands for more tolerance. People who say that tend to mean that everyone else should be more tolerant of THEIR specific group. It doesn't seem to occur to them that they themselves are often the epitome of intolerance.
I think there is an innate tendency toward a "tribe" mentality. Something in us craves being part of an "us" who is against a "them". Perhaps the human brain is not capable of handling the complexity of all the real connections that exist, so we break it down to what we can manage--our schools, our denominations, our sports teams, etc. We learn from the past that a strong "one mindedness" can be an extremely dangerous thing. Perhaps the little groups we divide up into keep us from doing more real damage than we otherwise would.
Government that is limited, local, and leashed shortly is what the brilliant drafters of our defining documents had in mind, certainly. But those "roadblocks to tyranny" seem to be being pushed aside with alarming frequency and ease. Your question (if I am understanding you correctly) is; should we just let the thing fall apart and pick up the pieces and start over, or take a more proactive approach? The beast cannot have its insatiable appetite curbed under the current conditions. Eventually it will have to be starved into submission, but how?
I cannot envision a scenario where the masses living on entitlements willingly give them up in an effort to facilitate a return to the ideas of self sufficiency and individual liberty which they are wholly unfamiliar with. Even the proposal of such a thing would result in nationwide violence on a scale that would make what is happening in Greece look like a picnic. Are you aware of an organization of active and retired military and law enforcement officers who have listed 10 orders they will not obey, all of which violate the Constitution? Lines are being drawn.
As for "some action, any action," the beast could, I think, be brought sufficiently to heel if a majority of the producers decided to stop paying for the destruction of their own liberty. Ayn Rand would love the John Galt style of that; you've pushed us to the limit and punished us for our success, let's see how you get along without us and our money. There is more likely, however, to be some event that will force things to a head. Either a crisis that those in power use to seal near complete control, or a line which they may cross unaware that it would be the tipping point. The latter would be something that would cause the populace to finally yank hard enough on the bit placed in the mouth of the beast by the Framers to cause it to, however reluctantly, lumber in the direction that "we the people" want it to go. The "something" would be, as you indicate, "painful," but that may just be the price for letting it drift so far from what the Founders left us with.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Feet In Many Worlds
Isn’t recognizing complexity without being overwhelmed or confused by it a worthy goal? Or is the human desire for comfort zones and simplifying our lives so strong as to make distinctive and semi-exclusionary social groups the norm?
Having recently returned from a wonderful conference on financial management (it really was, surprisingly) in Orlando, it got me thinking a bit about, well, me. The people I was at the conference with were truly great, a wonderful mil community. We went out and had fun doing karaoke one night (with some very intimidating singers—when was the last time people filled the dance floor when the karaoke singer was belting it out?). And I left for that conference the morning after a wonderful and wild end-of-school party with my twenty-something friends (hot tub, pool table, convertible rides, beer pong, fire pits, Hungarian horseshoes, fun drinks, etc.). And that after graduation with the “establishment” of the area and my fellow instructors and a fair amount of haute socializing. And that a week coming off an airshow meeting many representatives of the vendors and the Blue Angels and the city and many traditional folks with good values. And that after meeting with a wonderful environmental group and the striving for a better world they represent, and a different, although equally good, set of values.
My thinking out loud: They don’t associate much with each other! And don’t want to! Am I just an oddity of life in that I get along so well with all of them, that I actually enjoy and value all their company? That I recognize their strengths and drawbacks and yet don’t dwell on them? Most of them ASSUME I am completely and wholly one and the same as them, but of course I’m not. The few who know I’m different needle me that I don’t stand for enough (I do stand for plenty; they just have to razz me).
Well, reading over the above two paragraphs scented a bit of arrogance, I see. But I really do want an opinion from the blogkin (that would be you)! Are we as a society fated, except sometimes in moment of crisis, to be divided, to be inward looking at ourselves and our own groups? Everyone cries for cooperation, but holds so strongly to their own beliefs and desires that it makes cooperation the near-impossible goal.
Certainly, our political system, while it often forces compromise, is not really designed much for actual cooperation. Our Framers designed a system of fractionated power (they learned the need to do that from history!) because they believed in one thing above all: maximum roadblocks to tyranny. If that is the case then, it is almost the fire-sign that we should not design or build really complex political/governmental institutions that require cooperation, because the system will damn them to inefficiency or failure, even disregarding the natural enervating properties of bureaucracy. And that would mean that the case for limited government is almost built in as fated to be the only rational choice. And that local government itself should not only be limited, but the primary body that does exert some governmental influence.
And if that is the case, given the difficulty of cooperation, should we the observant merely wait until the built-in predispositions of the system return things to how they should be (perhaps after much pain)? Or is the power absorbing reach of the modern nation-state so strong as to necessitate some action, any action, to force it to face its incongruent and self-destructive strivings?
I think I have a hint of what your answer might be, but am not sure. You have been full of thought provoking gems!
Having recently returned from a wonderful conference on financial management (it really was, surprisingly) in Orlando, it got me thinking a bit about, well, me. The people I was at the conference with were truly great, a wonderful mil community. We went out and had fun doing karaoke one night (with some very intimidating singers—when was the last time people filled the dance floor when the karaoke singer was belting it out?). And I left for that conference the morning after a wonderful and wild end-of-school party with my twenty-something friends (hot tub, pool table, convertible rides, beer pong, fire pits, Hungarian horseshoes, fun drinks, etc.). And that after graduation with the “establishment” of the area and my fellow instructors and a fair amount of haute socializing. And that a week coming off an airshow meeting many representatives of the vendors and the Blue Angels and the city and many traditional folks with good values. And that after meeting with a wonderful environmental group and the striving for a better world they represent, and a different, although equally good, set of values.
My thinking out loud: They don’t associate much with each other! And don’t want to! Am I just an oddity of life in that I get along so well with all of them, that I actually enjoy and value all their company? That I recognize their strengths and drawbacks and yet don’t dwell on them? Most of them ASSUME I am completely and wholly one and the same as them, but of course I’m not. The few who know I’m different needle me that I don’t stand for enough (I do stand for plenty; they just have to razz me).
Well, reading over the above two paragraphs scented a bit of arrogance, I see. But I really do want an opinion from the blogkin (that would be you)! Are we as a society fated, except sometimes in moment of crisis, to be divided, to be inward looking at ourselves and our own groups? Everyone cries for cooperation, but holds so strongly to their own beliefs and desires that it makes cooperation the near-impossible goal.
Certainly, our political system, while it often forces compromise, is not really designed much for actual cooperation. Our Framers designed a system of fractionated power (they learned the need to do that from history!) because they believed in one thing above all: maximum roadblocks to tyranny. If that is the case then, it is almost the fire-sign that we should not design or build really complex political/governmental institutions that require cooperation, because the system will damn them to inefficiency or failure, even disregarding the natural enervating properties of bureaucracy. And that would mean that the case for limited government is almost built in as fated to be the only rational choice. And that local government itself should not only be limited, but the primary body that does exert some governmental influence.
And if that is the case, given the difficulty of cooperation, should we the observant merely wait until the built-in predispositions of the system return things to how they should be (perhaps after much pain)? Or is the power absorbing reach of the modern nation-state so strong as to necessitate some action, any action, to force it to face its incongruent and self-destructive strivings?
I think I have a hint of what your answer might be, but am not sure. You have been full of thought provoking gems!
Italy, Facebook, and Saving the World...
"A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum..." quite literally, in fact.
On a tour of Italy in 2009, a PhD college professor and a self educated stay at home mom struck up a conversation that turned out to be the germ of this blog. Through the magic of technology (Who says Facebook's a waste of time?), it was possible for the conversation to continue once we each returned home. In between our discussing everything from the environment to politics, one of the things that we lamented was the lack of civil discourse in our culture. We began to wonder--if it was possible for US to discuss controversial issues calmly in an effort to gain better understanding and seek real solutions to problems, might we encourage others to engage in a polite but passionate dialogue as well? Can two people with so many differences maintain a friendship and a sense of humor while hashing out the issues of the day? That is what we intend to find out and we hope you'll join us to see what the current topic for discussion is and tell us what you think! Civilly, of course.
We also each have individual blogs where we will address issues and ideas which interest us. If you are looking for a slightly volatile mix of academic discussion and hard-headed analysis of the problem du jour, head to The Professor's Blog. For snarky common sense and the occasional recipe (and far better pictures!), visit The Housewife's.
We hope you enjoy our little experiment.
“Do not let yourselves be discouraged or embittered by the smallness of the success you are likely to achieve in trying to make life better. You certainly would not be able, in a single generation, to create an earthly paradise. Who could expect that? But, if you make life ever so little better, you will have done splendidly, and your lives will have been worthwhile.” ~ Arnold Toynbee
On a tour of Italy in 2009, a PhD college professor and a self educated stay at home mom struck up a conversation that turned out to be the germ of this blog. Through the magic of technology (Who says Facebook's a waste of time?), it was possible for the conversation to continue once we each returned home. In between our discussing everything from the environment to politics, one of the things that we lamented was the lack of civil discourse in our culture. We began to wonder--if it was possible for US to discuss controversial issues calmly in an effort to gain better understanding and seek real solutions to problems, might we encourage others to engage in a polite but passionate dialogue as well? Can two people with so many differences maintain a friendship and a sense of humor while hashing out the issues of the day? That is what we intend to find out and we hope you'll join us to see what the current topic for discussion is and tell us what you think! Civilly, of course.
We also each have individual blogs where we will address issues and ideas which interest us. If you are looking for a slightly volatile mix of academic discussion and hard-headed analysis of the problem du jour, head to The Professor's Blog. For snarky common sense and the occasional recipe (and far better pictures!), visit The Housewife's.
We hope you enjoy our little experiment.
“Do not let yourselves be discouraged or embittered by the smallness of the success you are likely to achieve in trying to make life better. You certainly would not be able, in a single generation, to create an earthly paradise. Who could expect that? But, if you make life ever so little better, you will have done splendidly, and your lives will have been worthwhile.” ~ Arnold Toynbee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
