Professor J,
"Mad Dame M" made me laugh out loud, literally. Clever! :)
In the media it seems that the Sunday morning round table discussion shows are the only place to hear any kind of thoughtful idea exchange between reasonable individuals. In real life it seems nearly extinct. How very sad. As for it being the reason we founded this blog, well, no one can say we didn't try. :)
Your Roe vs. Wade example is the one that comes closest to illustrating my problem with some judges and their decisions. To me the difficulty arises when a federal judge overturns something a state has come to a decision on. A great many things that divide us as a nation should be left up to the states to work out, the best option available for allowing the full expression of the plurality of ideas and morality in such a diverse country. Those unable to abide the idea of abortion being illegal or same sex marriage being legal could move to another state which would be (logistically) not all that difficult and would save all those celebrities from idly threatening to leave the country every time an election doesn't go their way. It even seems plausible that in some areas within a state where an entrenched culture of one kind or another already exists that may be at odds with the rest of the state (San Francisco or New Orleans for instance), that a city could declare itself a sort of "city state" and its residents could maintain authority over themselves on certain issues. It would be a bit chaotic, perhaps as a way of governing but would allow optimum freedom for individuals and decentralize thinking and control on any number of issues. Isn't freedom always going to be kind of messy?
I could not help wondering while reading Obama's book how I might have felt about it had I read it prior to his presidency. Knowing what he has chosen to do once he had the chance and the condescending air with which he has treated some of his critics caused me to scoff at times. While the hope for bipartisanship (though the book is more partisan than I expected), understanding, and reaching out were worthy goals for Senator Obama, President Obama's hope for those things in the last two years has been less than audacious. He has refused to listen and then seems shocked that an angry populace gave him (and his party) a "shellacking" in November. A cool demeanor is fine but the kind of dis-ingenuousness involved when a leader claims not to be aware of tens (or hundreds depending on whose numbers you believe) of thousands of citizens on the mall protesting his policies and asking to be heard, is not. People resent being dismissed out of hand even by a charismatic leader, and as you pointed out he has turned out to be less of that than we might have expected.
My favorite parts of his book haven't been his political or social commentary but his charming descriptions of his relationships with his wife and daughters to whom he appears completely devoted, and his worries about if he's doing it well (which by all outward indications he is) given the lack of a reliable father figure in his own life. A man being honest about such things is endlessly fascinating to women, a rare glimpse into the struggle from the other side. We so desperately need in this country examples of family men especially in our inner city communities. I find it troubling however that he stalwartly defends many of the policies that have ravaged poor families families over the last 50 yrs, policies that have often pushed fathers to the sidelines only to be replaced with a government program and some massive bureaucracy to go with it. In his chapter on family he lays out statistics that show how families have been damaged by these policies but refuses to connect the two, which I found to smack of intellectual dishonesty. More about all of THAT in future posts. :)
If Obama reads cool and restrained, Beck runs hot and pokes his finger in your chest. He's trying to get an emotional reaction which is due in part to his determination to shake the electorate from its apathy. I get that and I think it is necessary to some extent. It has been nearly impossible to get people emotionally stirred up enough to be vocal with their elected officials about the debt and the demise of the dollar (look how long Ron Paul has been saying the same thing) or for people to think about it and talk about it in their daily lives. It's fairly dire water cooler talk. And of course, what sort of people launch into this kind of discussion with someone they just met? (Oh, wait...;)) So I do think he does a great service in that, just as he does in getting people to study history or to read something not normally on bedside tables like The Federalist Papers and biographies of the founders. As for his "historical interpretations" that give you and other historians pause, they must be viewed alongside his admonitions not to listen to him, but for people to read and study for themselves. He loses ME when the lines on the chalk board on his show become too connected. Everything can't be a conspiracy. Even Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Insert your own Clintonian joke here. ;))
You call him on the "mocking dismissal of teachers, and
particularly professors, a sort of reverse intellectual discrimination" and rightly so. He does frequently blame the "tweed jackets" for quite a lot and in a few cases he may have a valid point. Some of what Beck complains of and parents of college students fret over however is a distinct lack of preparation for, or exposure to, a variety of other world views prior to the college experience. A direct result perhaps, of people doing what you point out and only listening to/reading those whose opinions they agree with. An alternate view then presented by a professor to the student may, in fact, feel like an attack. I do find it interesting that for all his fear of our barreling headlong into socialism and communism making fun of intellectuals doesn't bother him. Just a passing familiarity with the cultural revolution of China should make the hair on the back of the necks of his audience stand up when he does it.
If I had a big problem with Obama NOT mentioning the national debt often enough and CERTAINLY not strongly enough in his book I also had a little problem with his constant use of the word democracy. Democracy. Democracy. I seemed to find it on every other page but I kept looking for another word. Republic. No where to be found, though he does use the phrase "republican form of government" in his chapter, "The World Beyond Our Borders". Aside from that he shies away from using the correct term for the kind of government the founders gave us, even in an entire chapter on the Constitution written by an (shall we say) instructor of Constitutional law. I found it hard to believe that would be an accident. Why mislead instead of instruct if given the chance?
Blast! And I was so keen on letting YOU continue to be the windbag. ;)
"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." ~ Henry David Thoreau
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Windy and Scriv
Madame M:
There is an apparently popular book out about snarkiness. I saw it in passing at a bookstore. It even has the word “Snark” in the title.
Well, Obama was never a full-time professor, but perhaps that’s parsing a little too much. :)
Such a rare thing, yes. It seldom matters anymore what facts are presented. People are so emotionally invested in their positions, that upon the first thing they read that they emotionally disagree with (and often feel, predictably—if erringly—enough in our disconnected society, to be attacking them as a person, requiring a full scale salvo on the other person’s person, not the position taken), they stop reading and begin dismissing and attacking. They rarely attack the presented facts, however; they attack the writer of them, often accusing that writer of “pushing an agenda,” or worse, of being some aspect of evil. Even on the rare occasions that they do address the facts, it is usually only in general form—they almost never discuss specific facts. At best, they cherry pick a few, and even then, often twist them into bizarre interpretations. It is so rare, isn’t it, to find a discussion that does not degenerate into this pattern? Guess that’s one of the reasons we founded this blog, hmm? :)
Irritated? I almost changed your address to Mad Dame M! ;) Seriously, I am irritated at most of the things you listed as well. I am a bit on the fence about federal judges, however. While I recognize that judges of various political persuasions have seemed a bit pro-active in their rulings and interpretations, I often (although certainly nowhere near always) find upon reading their opinions that they have applied serious thought and consideration and both appreciation for precedent and wording of the law. Yet there do seem instances where matters have clearly been stretched beyond reasonableness, and perhaps even into manipulation, with Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission and Kelo vs. City of New London probably among the most egregious of examples. Roe vs. Wade might also be put in that category (for its trumping of states’ rights more than the issue at hand), although at least its legal arguments could be followed, if not agreed with. Yet the “will of the people” is not always a clear thing, and their emotional variability and susceptibility are some of the reasons the Framers made federal judges have lifetime appointments not subject to whims of the moment or emotional override of the law and Constitution, but rather unhurried and reasoned legal review (that was the goal, anyway).
You ask, after listing all the things you (and largely I too) are irritated with, “is this who we are?” While I suspect that underneath much of the crass veneer, there still exists much real or potential clearheaded goodness of the American people, perhaps too much has already been given over to the shift (including about understanding, as you’ve indicated) analyzed in Chris Hedges’ “Empire of Illusion” (a book I suspect will be the next thing we discuss after we have discussed these books).
Obama’s writing style, and Beck’s, reflect the tight yet easy hand of a lawyer who has written a lot of briefings, and who has had the benefit of many good editors and critiquing friends—Obama because he is a lawyer, Beck because his writing assistant is one.
Beck is a bit of an enigma to me. Partly because he has been accepted by many, and dismissed by just as many, there is much about him and his assertions to both like and dislike. He points out things that need pointing out and emphasized, and should be lauded for trying to spur people to take an interest in their gasping democracy, in their history, in the “system.” His efforts are especially laudatory for emphasizing, as you say, the massive debt hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles (and which Obama has been deficient in emphasizing, not only in his book, but since). And for pointing out the near-criminal hypocrisy, denial, and visionless stupidity of Washington and its associates, so sickeningly demonstrated by the congresswoman you mentioned. More on this in future posts.
Beck and I often part ways, however, when he carries his assertions, or the causes of those assertions, to ends I can’t agree with logically, or to historical interpretations that don’t stand up to this historian’s (and many’s) understandings. And Beck has regrettably/disturbingly transgressed on more than one occasion from trumpeting self-taught to mocking dismissal of teachers, particularly professors--a sort of reverse intellectual discrimination. I am not sure he could ever share such a forum as this one. Although he does invite certain professors to his show, they usually seem carefully selected to not question the goods (or the assumptions) in the apple cart. More on this in future posts.
Obama writes and reasons generally well in his book, and although emphasis and implication and desired action can sometimes be disagreed with, the reasonableness and common interest often comes across (one of the reasons, I take it, that his book energized so many).
Yet Obama, in well over the last year, has been either prickly or defensive, like he’s not listening. He’s more than a bit narcissistic in both public and in his writings, although in his writing it is more an odd mixture of introspection and narcissism. When questioned, he wants to explain HIS view on a lot of things, and extensively, and he wants to drive HIS objectives. He rubs people the wrong way partly because he no longer speaks or acts in the approachable manner he did before, and yet, at the same time, hasn’t transformed to fully presidential either. He hasn’t really communicated things well, and hasn’t been publicly active like a Ronald Reagan, for instance, or a Bill Clinton. He doesn’t smile nearly enough. He hasn’t connected. And his lack of executive experience has shown a great deal, not to mention his reliance on the same general cadre of Ivy-League establishment insiders, with the same general ideas, the same general policies, the same serving of the corporate consortium, and the same cynical attempts at manipulation (including manipulating him). If he doesn’t seem the same person he was when he wrote his book, he probably isn’t. Not just for the way the presidency changes everyone who holds it, but he is probably more alone, and has made himself more alone, than he ever bargained for.
I guess I am starting off as not really keen on either of the gentlemen. Yet I will try to analyze and critique their works on what is written, and not extrapolate too much. I predict, however, that this post may be the shortest one on this from the Windbag! :)
There is an apparently popular book out about snarkiness. I saw it in passing at a bookstore. It even has the word “Snark” in the title.
Well, Obama was never a full-time professor, but perhaps that’s parsing a little too much. :)
Such a rare thing, yes. It seldom matters anymore what facts are presented. People are so emotionally invested in their positions, that upon the first thing they read that they emotionally disagree with (and often feel, predictably—if erringly—enough in our disconnected society, to be attacking them as a person, requiring a full scale salvo on the other person’s person, not the position taken), they stop reading and begin dismissing and attacking. They rarely attack the presented facts, however; they attack the writer of them, often accusing that writer of “pushing an agenda,” or worse, of being some aspect of evil. Even on the rare occasions that they do address the facts, it is usually only in general form—they almost never discuss specific facts. At best, they cherry pick a few, and even then, often twist them into bizarre interpretations. It is so rare, isn’t it, to find a discussion that does not degenerate into this pattern? Guess that’s one of the reasons we founded this blog, hmm? :)
Irritated? I almost changed your address to Mad Dame M! ;) Seriously, I am irritated at most of the things you listed as well. I am a bit on the fence about federal judges, however. While I recognize that judges of various political persuasions have seemed a bit pro-active in their rulings and interpretations, I often (although certainly nowhere near always) find upon reading their opinions that they have applied serious thought and consideration and both appreciation for precedent and wording of the law. Yet there do seem instances where matters have clearly been stretched beyond reasonableness, and perhaps even into manipulation, with Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission and Kelo vs. City of New London probably among the most egregious of examples. Roe vs. Wade might also be put in that category (for its trumping of states’ rights more than the issue at hand), although at least its legal arguments could be followed, if not agreed with. Yet the “will of the people” is not always a clear thing, and their emotional variability and susceptibility are some of the reasons the Framers made federal judges have lifetime appointments not subject to whims of the moment or emotional override of the law and Constitution, but rather unhurried and reasoned legal review (that was the goal, anyway).
You ask, after listing all the things you (and largely I too) are irritated with, “is this who we are?” While I suspect that underneath much of the crass veneer, there still exists much real or potential clearheaded goodness of the American people, perhaps too much has already been given over to the shift (including about understanding, as you’ve indicated) analyzed in Chris Hedges’ “Empire of Illusion” (a book I suspect will be the next thing we discuss after we have discussed these books).
Obama’s writing style, and Beck’s, reflect the tight yet easy hand of a lawyer who has written a lot of briefings, and who has had the benefit of many good editors and critiquing friends—Obama because he is a lawyer, Beck because his writing assistant is one.
Beck is a bit of an enigma to me. Partly because he has been accepted by many, and dismissed by just as many, there is much about him and his assertions to both like and dislike. He points out things that need pointing out and emphasized, and should be lauded for trying to spur people to take an interest in their gasping democracy, in their history, in the “system.” His efforts are especially laudatory for emphasizing, as you say, the massive debt hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles (and which Obama has been deficient in emphasizing, not only in his book, but since). And for pointing out the near-criminal hypocrisy, denial, and visionless stupidity of Washington and its associates, so sickeningly demonstrated by the congresswoman you mentioned. More on this in future posts.
Beck and I often part ways, however, when he carries his assertions, or the causes of those assertions, to ends I can’t agree with logically, or to historical interpretations that don’t stand up to this historian’s (and many’s) understandings. And Beck has regrettably/disturbingly transgressed on more than one occasion from trumpeting self-taught to mocking dismissal of teachers, particularly professors--a sort of reverse intellectual discrimination. I am not sure he could ever share such a forum as this one. Although he does invite certain professors to his show, they usually seem carefully selected to not question the goods (or the assumptions) in the apple cart. More on this in future posts.
Obama writes and reasons generally well in his book, and although emphasis and implication and desired action can sometimes be disagreed with, the reasonableness and common interest often comes across (one of the reasons, I take it, that his book energized so many).
Yet Obama, in well over the last year, has been either prickly or defensive, like he’s not listening. He’s more than a bit narcissistic in both public and in his writings, although in his writing it is more an odd mixture of introspection and narcissism. When questioned, he wants to explain HIS view on a lot of things, and extensively, and he wants to drive HIS objectives. He rubs people the wrong way partly because he no longer speaks or acts in the approachable manner he did before, and yet, at the same time, hasn’t transformed to fully presidential either. He hasn’t really communicated things well, and hasn’t been publicly active like a Ronald Reagan, for instance, or a Bill Clinton. He doesn’t smile nearly enough. He hasn’t connected. And his lack of executive experience has shown a great deal, not to mention his reliance on the same general cadre of Ivy-League establishment insiders, with the same general ideas, the same general policies, the same serving of the corporate consortium, and the same cynical attempts at manipulation (including manipulating him). If he doesn’t seem the same person he was when he wrote his book, he probably isn’t. Not just for the way the presidency changes everyone who holds it, but he is probably more alone, and has made himself more alone, than he ever bargained for.
I guess I am starting off as not really keen on either of the gentlemen. Yet I will try to analyze and critique their works on what is written, and not extrapolate too much. I predict, however, that this post may be the shortest one on this from the Windbag! :)
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Civility, Hope, and Common Sense
Professor J,
I can't help but notice that you have chosen one book by a self educated snark and one by a former professor. :)
In Life Without Principle Thoreau wrote, "The greatest compliment that was ever paid me was when one asked me what I thought and attended to my answer."
Such a simple, yet rare thing.
You've asked me to start off which I'll do with a bit of disclosure. I'm irritated. I'm irritated by a lack of journalistic standards and objectivity, I'm irritated by commentators and pundits who toe the party line religiously, no matter what. I'm irritated by conspiracy theories espoused by those on the fringy edges of both sides. I'm irritated by the kind of ideological group think that demands everyone think alike, before anything can be solved, by the attitude of whichever party is in power that it is somehow "payback time" and federal judges that override the will of the people more and more frequently. And I'm downright worried about the constant slide toward crassness in entertainment, cynicism in thought, and shallowness everywhere.
Is this who we are?
When these two men write about opportunity, faith, family, and the American dream I can agree with both of them that those things, among others, are core values. Common ground we can all agree on. When people refuse to make an attempt at understanding it is exhausting on a personal level and disheartening on a communal one.
I had read Glenn Beck's Common Sense before. I like him. I don't always agree with him, but overall I think he's just a guy who cares about the Constitution and the kind of country we are leaving our children and grandchildren. Most important of all, to me, he worries about the debt, the massive crushing debt hanging over us like some ominous storm cloud that might burst at any moment (so precarious the situation we've gotten ourselves into). He is willing to tell the truth, and a hard truth it is. His ratings and success are a testament to the fact that lots of our fellow countrymen are ready to hear what those in Washington don't think we can take (or are afraid we'll figure out). Let's just take a cold hard look at how bad things really are and stop pretending that it will just magically work itself out. Or worse, like the Congresswoman I saw interviewed about the ever ballooning unfunded liabilities who said she was sure our kids would be smarter than we are and they would figure out a solution. They'll really appreciate us having such confidence in them, I'm sure. I believe Beck when he says he hopes he's wrong. I think a lot of us hope we are too.
As I'm rereading Beck alongside the book written by, then Senator Obama, I find the similarities interesting. At times certain phrases, even entire paragraphs could have been written by either one of them. I'm surprised by Obama's casual writing style especially when relating personal stories and his honesty about how he feels about things. But while I'm glad to have Beck (or anyone) continuously beat the drum on debt and try to get us to rise from our collective stupor I would like to have heard more about it from the Senator. He mentions it only six times. Overall I found much I agreed with (at least in theory) but other things left me questioning his reasoning.
But more about all that in future posts. It's difficult to focus on anything serious as I currently have "visions of sugarplums" and other Christmas related nonsense dancing around in my head. I also don't want to give you any competition for the title of "windbag." which I am only too happy to let you keep. ;)
The Windbag and The Scrivener wouldn't have been a bad name for this blog! LOL
I can't help but notice that you have chosen one book by a self educated snark and one by a former professor. :)
In Life Without Principle Thoreau wrote, "The greatest compliment that was ever paid me was when one asked me what I thought and attended to my answer."
Such a simple, yet rare thing.
You've asked me to start off which I'll do with a bit of disclosure. I'm irritated. I'm irritated by a lack of journalistic standards and objectivity, I'm irritated by commentators and pundits who toe the party line religiously, no matter what. I'm irritated by conspiracy theories espoused by those on the fringy edges of both sides. I'm irritated by the kind of ideological group think that demands everyone think alike, before anything can be solved, by the attitude of whichever party is in power that it is somehow "payback time" and federal judges that override the will of the people more and more frequently. And I'm downright worried about the constant slide toward crassness in entertainment, cynicism in thought, and shallowness everywhere.
Is this who we are?
When these two men write about opportunity, faith, family, and the American dream I can agree with both of them that those things, among others, are core values. Common ground we can all agree on. When people refuse to make an attempt at understanding it is exhausting on a personal level and disheartening on a communal one.
I had read Glenn Beck's Common Sense before. I like him. I don't always agree with him, but overall I think he's just a guy who cares about the Constitution and the kind of country we are leaving our children and grandchildren. Most important of all, to me, he worries about the debt, the massive crushing debt hanging over us like some ominous storm cloud that might burst at any moment (so precarious the situation we've gotten ourselves into). He is willing to tell the truth, and a hard truth it is. His ratings and success are a testament to the fact that lots of our fellow countrymen are ready to hear what those in Washington don't think we can take (or are afraid we'll figure out). Let's just take a cold hard look at how bad things really are and stop pretending that it will just magically work itself out. Or worse, like the Congresswoman I saw interviewed about the ever ballooning unfunded liabilities who said she was sure our kids would be smarter than we are and they would figure out a solution. They'll really appreciate us having such confidence in them, I'm sure. I believe Beck when he says he hopes he's wrong. I think a lot of us hope we are too.
As I'm rereading Beck alongside the book written by, then Senator Obama, I find the similarities interesting. At times certain phrases, even entire paragraphs could have been written by either one of them. I'm surprised by Obama's casual writing style especially when relating personal stories and his honesty about how he feels about things. But while I'm glad to have Beck (or anyone) continuously beat the drum on debt and try to get us to rise from our collective stupor I would like to have heard more about it from the Senator. He mentions it only six times. Overall I found much I agreed with (at least in theory) but other things left me questioning his reasoning.
But more about all that in future posts. It's difficult to focus on anything serious as I currently have "visions of sugarplums" and other Christmas related nonsense dancing around in my head. I also don't want to give you any competition for the title of "windbag." which I am only too happy to let you keep. ;)
The Windbag and The Scrivener wouldn't have been a bad name for this blog! LOL
Christmas blessings to you and to our readers.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Peep and Peeps
Madame M,
I do the same thing. I lack the sensitivity and common sense to hide behind a book or magazine however, and I just observe. Some probably think it’s staring, so I guess I better watch it or I will end up on some creep alert list, lol.
Your story of the power outage is a testament to our search for balance. The connection is there, yet we lose most all sense of proportion and place and limits once electricity is restored.
Ah, I sense our expression on this topic winding down (at least for the moment). I have this idea. In this age of polarization, what if we do a book discussion of two books at the same time? I was thinking of Glenn Beck’s Common Sense and Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope. While I understand that a number of people do not consider them artful or sufficient contrasts, enough do, and perhaps it might be instructive to discuss them together. In our polarized world, too many of us citizens read things written by only one “side,” with the other “side” dismissed with reading at best a few sentences or listening to a few sound bites (and even many of those come chosen by the opposing “side”). How is that going to increase understanding? Perhaps we could take a lesson from Adams and Jefferson. Rivals and political enemies can often be surprised they have things in common, but are even more surprised that those on the other side sometimes have worthy things to say and even some valid points. As we said in the beginning, perhaps we can contribute to some civil disagreeing! :)
Since I am the windbag of us two, and you are the mercifully appropriate word-length scriviner, would you like to start us off? I am thinking this is going to be a very long thread! :)
I do the same thing. I lack the sensitivity and common sense to hide behind a book or magazine however, and I just observe. Some probably think it’s staring, so I guess I better watch it or I will end up on some creep alert list, lol.
Your story of the power outage is a testament to our search for balance. The connection is there, yet we lose most all sense of proportion and place and limits once electricity is restored.
Ah, I sense our expression on this topic winding down (at least for the moment). I have this idea. In this age of polarization, what if we do a book discussion of two books at the same time? I was thinking of Glenn Beck’s Common Sense and Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope. While I understand that a number of people do not consider them artful or sufficient contrasts, enough do, and perhaps it might be instructive to discuss them together. In our polarized world, too many of us citizens read things written by only one “side,” with the other “side” dismissed with reading at best a few sentences or listening to a few sound bites (and even many of those come chosen by the opposing “side”). How is that going to increase understanding? Perhaps we could take a lesson from Adams and Jefferson. Rivals and political enemies can often be surprised they have things in common, but are even more surprised that those on the other side sometimes have worthy things to say and even some valid points. As we said in the beginning, perhaps we can contribute to some civil disagreeing! :)
Since I am the windbag of us two, and you are the mercifully appropriate word-length scriviner, would you like to start us off? I am thinking this is going to be a very long thread! :)
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Prioritizing People
Professor J,
"The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate.” Joseph Priestly
In airports and coffee shops I see people with iPods on and laptops in use. They sit there in a completely connected yet oddly disconnected world of their own, oblivious to all going on around them. Everything about them says "Leave me alone." But perhaps they are communicating with friends, writing a book, or taking an online class. I'd like to think so.
People's diverted attention at the airport always astounds me. I am practically incapable of concentrating on anything when traveling because people watching is fascinating to me. Books and magazines become merely props to hide behind while I take in the passing human parade, wonder about their lives, and try to imagine what their stories might be.
Your story about the geography professor is disheartening on many levels and perhaps more so to the mother of a college student. The escape from reality you describe is perhaps the new "gin" that Shirky compared television to, though he thinks the internet a great boon to society for all the reasons we've already discussed.
We are in a battle always, it seems, to find balance.
You are correct when you say that it may be a crisis that corrects much of this social isolation. We often experience that truth on a smaller scale. Several years ago we had a fierce storm that knocked out power all over the city for days. While putting up with all the problems that go along with a lack of electricity our family also played board games, talked, spent time in the same room together, checked on neighbors, and my son and I took the opportunity to sit in our cove and look at the night sky. Light pollution normally dulls the heavens to the point where it seems all you regularly see is the moon. An entire city plunged into darkness suddenly revealed what we are blind to. A couple of days later when power was restored my son noted that it was "kind of sad". While the comfort of air conditioning is always welcome in July in the south he was sensing that there is a price attached to our modern climate controlled lifestyles. He had a temporary glimpse of another way of being a neighborhood and a family.
Exactly two minutes after power was restored what did we all do? Of course, we powered up all our electronic devices and retreated to separate rooms with them.
If we could learn to hold our relationships in the highest esteem and foster our creativity (making the best use of technology to do those things) while recognizing our need for connection to the natural world we'd improve things greatly. Discussing it and giving it some thought can't be a bad place to start, my friend.
"The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate.” Joseph Priestly
In airports and coffee shops I see people with iPods on and laptops in use. They sit there in a completely connected yet oddly disconnected world of their own, oblivious to all going on around them. Everything about them says "Leave me alone." But perhaps they are communicating with friends, writing a book, or taking an online class. I'd like to think so.
People's diverted attention at the airport always astounds me. I am practically incapable of concentrating on anything when traveling because people watching is fascinating to me. Books and magazines become merely props to hide behind while I take in the passing human parade, wonder about their lives, and try to imagine what their stories might be.
Your story about the geography professor is disheartening on many levels and perhaps more so to the mother of a college student. The escape from reality you describe is perhaps the new "gin" that Shirky compared television to, though he thinks the internet a great boon to society for all the reasons we've already discussed.
We are in a battle always, it seems, to find balance.
You are correct when you say that it may be a crisis that corrects much of this social isolation. We often experience that truth on a smaller scale. Several years ago we had a fierce storm that knocked out power all over the city for days. While putting up with all the problems that go along with a lack of electricity our family also played board games, talked, spent time in the same room together, checked on neighbors, and my son and I took the opportunity to sit in our cove and look at the night sky. Light pollution normally dulls the heavens to the point where it seems all you regularly see is the moon. An entire city plunged into darkness suddenly revealed what we are blind to. A couple of days later when power was restored my son noted that it was "kind of sad". While the comfort of air conditioning is always welcome in July in the south he was sensing that there is a price attached to our modern climate controlled lifestyles. He had a temporary glimpse of another way of being a neighborhood and a family.
Exactly two minutes after power was restored what did we all do? Of course, we powered up all our electronic devices and retreated to separate rooms with them.
If we could learn to hold our relationships in the highest esteem and foster our creativity (making the best use of technology to do those things) while recognizing our need for connection to the natural world we'd improve things greatly. Discussing it and giving it some thought can't be a bad place to start, my friend.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Awareness and A Wariness
Madame M,
No, fewer and fewer do realize it is rude. Fewer even care. It bodes ill for authentic relationships and sociability, let alone civility. What if we become too much these semi-isolated and insulated individuals who only occasionally (perhaps even reluctantly) interact with others and their surroundings? When a society becomes too individualistic, that is, when community becomes more and more merely a hope, perhaps Hobbes’ anarchy is nearer than thought.
I walk to the track and go by males (and occasionally females) who look the other way, or do not respond when I give them a greeting. I go to the gym and see most working out by themselves, with most shut off by the earpods of isolation, marching (or in this case, exercising) to their own tune(s). Even when someone doesn’t have earpods in, they exude an aura of concern that you might actually talk to them! Some of it, I’m sure, is this fear-ridden dysfunctionality we’ve constructed between men and women, but some of it is just people to people too. Our social skills are becoming a bit enfeebled or stunted.
Fortunately, these are some of the easiest things to correct, but we’ll have to fashion a new social paradigm in the doing. Unfortunately, it is a crisis which often does that…
I know of a geography professor, a newly minted fairly young PhD, who is bright, but exhibit A for this phenomenon. On the day that Call of Duty: Black Ops came out, he cancelled class so he could buy it and play it. I know many young professionals like this. I know legions more who have no job, aren’t looking for one, and show no goals, who are even more like this. The seductive and diversionary entertainment and endless communication (FB, Twit, IM, etc.) has replaced their thinking about reality and their real life (which, admittedly, this society and its system have done an increasingly poor job in making attractive).
There are many harmful facets to this, but the most pressing one to me is that the urgent and vital work of the society and world is being neglected because these people are on the Net or their video game and it is using up all their time, energy, and focus. Few sound the trumpet, and fewer hear it. And those that do flounder around in frustrating disconnection.
We don’t need anyone to conquer us, we are conquering ourselves.
Ah, go with envy to the vast library of your friend, to her cooking, and to the wine!
And I have not read Scroogenomics, but have read extensive reviews on it. Like similar books I’ve read (Affluenza, The Two-Income Trap, etc.), it calls into question this consumer madness, a madness that does not advance the things in our lives that matter.
No, fewer and fewer do realize it is rude. Fewer even care. It bodes ill for authentic relationships and sociability, let alone civility. What if we become too much these semi-isolated and insulated individuals who only occasionally (perhaps even reluctantly) interact with others and their surroundings? When a society becomes too individualistic, that is, when community becomes more and more merely a hope, perhaps Hobbes’ anarchy is nearer than thought.
I walk to the track and go by males (and occasionally females) who look the other way, or do not respond when I give them a greeting. I go to the gym and see most working out by themselves, with most shut off by the earpods of isolation, marching (or in this case, exercising) to their own tune(s). Even when someone doesn’t have earpods in, they exude an aura of concern that you might actually talk to them! Some of it, I’m sure, is this fear-ridden dysfunctionality we’ve constructed between men and women, but some of it is just people to people too. Our social skills are becoming a bit enfeebled or stunted.
Fortunately, these are some of the easiest things to correct, but we’ll have to fashion a new social paradigm in the doing. Unfortunately, it is a crisis which often does that…
I know of a geography professor, a newly minted fairly young PhD, who is bright, but exhibit A for this phenomenon. On the day that Call of Duty: Black Ops came out, he cancelled class so he could buy it and play it. I know many young professionals like this. I know legions more who have no job, aren’t looking for one, and show no goals, who are even more like this. The seductive and diversionary entertainment and endless communication (FB, Twit, IM, etc.) has replaced their thinking about reality and their real life (which, admittedly, this society and its system have done an increasingly poor job in making attractive).
There are many harmful facets to this, but the most pressing one to me is that the urgent and vital work of the society and world is being neglected because these people are on the Net or their video game and it is using up all their time, energy, and focus. Few sound the trumpet, and fewer hear it. And those that do flounder around in frustrating disconnection.
We don’t need anyone to conquer us, we are conquering ourselves.
Ah, go with envy to the vast library of your friend, to her cooking, and to the wine!
And I have not read Scroogenomics, but have read extensive reviews on it. Like similar books I’ve read (Affluenza, The Two-Income Trap, etc.), it calls into question this consumer madness, a madness that does not advance the things in our lives that matter.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Screening Process
Professor J,
When our nifty new gadgets aren't connecting us or helping keep us connected they divide and often conquer. I'm on the verge of purchasing some iPod Earbuds just so I can wear them around and look blankly at people who speak to me, take one out, and mutter..."huh?" Does anyone realize how rude that is? Manners seem to be among the earliest casualties of technology from where I sit.
I'm beginning to wonder if as a culture we continue to spend more and more time alone in front of flickering screens of one kind or another, we are going to end up incapable of behaving decently toward one another and lose any sense of the little niceties and unwritten rules that are tacitly written into our various social interactions. The human connections that you so rightly point out that we crave can never be completely fulfilled without face to face interaction. No matter how eloquent the words on a flickering screen, what can replace the joy of hearing the sound of a friend's laughter or seeing the gleam of understanding and connection in some one's eye? There is always good and bad in everything and our new challenges/blessings are no exception.
I am at this very moment sitting in the home of a friend I keep up with regularly on Facebook. This week however, it has been such a joy to SEE the person I'm sharing with and TALK/LISTEN. Although the frequency and volume of our combined laughter and incessant storytelling may not be appreciated by those within earshot, it is to us, practically medicinal.
I am also fortunate to get to browse her vast library, eat her amazing cooking, and share delicious wine and espresso with her. You can't reproduce any of THAT sitting at a computer screen.
That is INDEED the shortest answer ever to appear on this blog from you! I hope you are not ill.
Did you ever read the book Scroogenomics I recommended to you? The thought of having to do Christmas shopping has me remembering how much I liked it and how much sense it made. :)
When our nifty new gadgets aren't connecting us or helping keep us connected they divide and often conquer. I'm on the verge of purchasing some iPod Earbuds just so I can wear them around and look blankly at people who speak to me, take one out, and mutter..."huh?" Does anyone realize how rude that is? Manners seem to be among the earliest casualties of technology from where I sit.
I'm beginning to wonder if as a culture we continue to spend more and more time alone in front of flickering screens of one kind or another, we are going to end up incapable of behaving decently toward one another and lose any sense of the little niceties and unwritten rules that are tacitly written into our various social interactions. The human connections that you so rightly point out that we crave can never be completely fulfilled without face to face interaction. No matter how eloquent the words on a flickering screen, what can replace the joy of hearing the sound of a friend's laughter or seeing the gleam of understanding and connection in some one's eye? There is always good and bad in everything and our new challenges/blessings are no exception.
I am at this very moment sitting in the home of a friend I keep up with regularly on Facebook. This week however, it has been such a joy to SEE the person I'm sharing with and TALK/LISTEN. Although the frequency and volume of our combined laughter and incessant storytelling may not be appreciated by those within earshot, it is to us, practically medicinal.
I am also fortunate to get to browse her vast library, eat her amazing cooking, and share delicious wine and espresso with her. You can't reproduce any of THAT sitting at a computer screen.
That is INDEED the shortest answer ever to appear on this blog from you! I hope you are not ill.
Did you ever read the book Scroogenomics I recommended to you? The thought of having to do Christmas shopping has me remembering how much I liked it and how much sense it made. :)
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Dysfunction Junction
Madame M,
Perpetuating certain problems? Those kinds of criticisms have been leveled at everything from The American Cancer Society to the “war on drugs,” and I can’t say I disagree much with the critics!
You have identified in ready form some deep drawbacks to our new tools and how we use/misuse them and may be enfeebling or even losing key interpersonal skills. Maybe society will become nearly entirely changed, and we the people will become like the sounds of nature—greatly altered, and a great portion not for the better. Like Rachel Carson lamenting that the sounds of true songbirds that she had heard in the springtimes of her youth had been silenced in her adulthood (but that too few noticed), so too might society become this connected/disconnected workable dysfunction, without much awareness (historians possibly excepted) of what has been altered and lost, nor much awareness of its dysfunction.
Comforting and enjoyable to know that you are/were doing pretty much the same things at the same time? Yes. Inside, we crave connection and community, the very things we disrupt by what we often do and do not do. Ever wonder why somehow it seems more fulfilling to watch a movie that is ON the television, or AT the theater, rather than pop it in or stream it? It is the shared experience, and of the moment, that we humans crave.
As for your question: The problems are not often the identical ones, but they are usually very similar. The human condition has at best changed only a little in all these thousands of years of recorded history.
That is the probably the shortest answer from me to ever appear on this blog. But that is all that is required for this particular question. See? Sometimes answers really are short and simple, albeit not always sweet! But as can be seen, those shorties are few and far between (what would that make that one, 1 in a 100?). Of course, undoubtedly there are critics who would up or lower that percentage! :)
Perpetuating certain problems? Those kinds of criticisms have been leveled at everything from The American Cancer Society to the “war on drugs,” and I can’t say I disagree much with the critics!
You have identified in ready form some deep drawbacks to our new tools and how we use/misuse them and may be enfeebling or even losing key interpersonal skills. Maybe society will become nearly entirely changed, and we the people will become like the sounds of nature—greatly altered, and a great portion not for the better. Like Rachel Carson lamenting that the sounds of true songbirds that she had heard in the springtimes of her youth had been silenced in her adulthood (but that too few noticed), so too might society become this connected/disconnected workable dysfunction, without much awareness (historians possibly excepted) of what has been altered and lost, nor much awareness of its dysfunction.
Comforting and enjoyable to know that you are/were doing pretty much the same things at the same time? Yes. Inside, we crave connection and community, the very things we disrupt by what we often do and do not do. Ever wonder why somehow it seems more fulfilling to watch a movie that is ON the television, or AT the theater, rather than pop it in or stream it? It is the shared experience, and of the moment, that we humans crave.
As for your question: The problems are not often the identical ones, but they are usually very similar. The human condition has at best changed only a little in all these thousands of years of recorded history.
That is the probably the shortest answer from me to ever appear on this blog. But that is all that is required for this particular question. See? Sometimes answers really are short and simple, albeit not always sweet! But as can be seen, those shorties are few and far between (what would that make that one, 1 in a 100?). Of course, undoubtedly there are critics who would up or lower that percentage! :)
Saturday, December 4, 2010
We're Still Here!
Today is the 5 month anniversary of our blog. You were probably expecting us to celebrate some trite milestone like 6 months or a year. Don't you know us by now?
There is a little story behind celebrating this particular amount of time. I (Housewife speaking) was at a party a couple of months ago and was chatting with someone a friend had introduced me to with "She has a blog with a friend of hers who is a professor, I think you would find it interesting." Then to me, "He reads 11 blogs a day!" The voracious blog reader chimed in to let me know that those were his "regulars," he did read others but he added how disappointing it is to find a blog he likes, get attached to the bloggers and then have them just abandon the site. "Five months seems to be the cut off. If they are still blogging after that they are usually going to stick with it."
So with that in mind we thought we'd celebrate this momentous occasion and let you know we expect to be around until we run out of things to write about. Which, according to the Professor's calculations, will be sometime around the year 2654. The date might be extended if new subjects come up between now and then. :)
Have you been keeping up? It could be a while.
Thanks for stopping by and as always, thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
