Puff ~N~ Stuff

Professor Windbag, 


On to your puffing! lol: You are right when you say that the truth is in the balance, which is discouraging when so much of what we see is becoming ever more unbalanced. That necessary tension between the individual and the community so off center now that "community" became a dirty word in the last presidential election.

Our founders used phrases like "common good" more readily because that's the world they lived in. Few people were (or are) entirely self sufficient. It was necessary to be part of a community in order get the help of people with skills one needed or goods one couldn't produce alone. Those responsibilities to the community came with. You are correct when you point out our "excessive individualism" that has come at such a high price.  And what/who has replaced friends, neighbors, the local shopkeeper? Not the government that worries Beck so, but the corporations that worry you. It's hard to instill in people a sense of community when they move so often from place to place, spend most of the time alone (or alone with their own families) at home, and when they venture out to do shopping, or run errands are likely not to see a single person they know. We rely on internet sites where people rate and review, trusting the advice of people we don't know about other people we don't know who provide services we need. The fractured connections breed distrust.

And guns and ammunition sales may very well be a “trust indicator,” as he says. Yet it is not only about the government. When people trust BOTH their government AND their fellow people, then gun and ammunition sales will go down.  Good point.  Again, trust (or the lack of it) is the underlying problem isn't it?

The militia (for several years now a dirty word on the other "side") idea would perhaps have gone a long way in helping to diminish the isolation that men in our culture feel. In Israel long after the service requirement has been met large numbers of men continue to serve in reserves with the same group for many years. It serves as a vehicle for male bonding, something as we've discussed before, is sorely needed here.

I don't know that Beck "hates nuance" and "complicated realities" as much as he just doesn't see them. He seems to see things as one way or another with very little gray where things merge and mesh.  You are correct when you say he takes things out of context, not only in the book but often on his show where something a politician says sounds undeniably damning (especially when played over and over), but when you see the entire speech or the comment as a whole the meaning is often less frightening, more understandable. There is plenty to be concerned about without whipping up fear unnecessarily which I think he sometimes does.

While I agree with a good bit of what he says some of the things he chooses to focus on make it hard to not question his thinking. His comments on Teddy Roosevelt and the National Parks for instance. It's hard to believe he doesn't think there is anything that should be protected and preserved so that it can be enjoyed by everyone.

The Japanese Americans whisked off to internment camps must have wondered why their friends and neighbors didn't rise up in their defense. I'm only aware of one official in Hawaii refusing to participate, yet hadn't everyone involved in making internment possible taken an oath to defend the Constitution? Fear and prejudice, so often the enemies of liberty.  Speaking of which, it is a failure on Beck's part not to have held the Patriot Act to the same standard as the actions he points out that took place post Katrina.

You covered the problems with education beautifully. I've been to a standing room only PTA meeting with parents lining the walls of a large lunchroom and spilling out into the corridor where a teacher got up and tearfully thanked parents for coming, explaining that she'd come from another school where even if the teachers pooled their money and provided a free dinner they were lucky to have 5 parents attend. We often see teachers begging for parental involvement.  There is (as you point out) plenty of blame to go around.

I have a problem with the "one size fits all" approach of the public system which I think starts far too young especially for males. I found (for us anyway) that combining home schooling, especially when they are young and you want to spark a lifelong love of learning, then a more traditional high school approach worked well. By the time they finished middle school I was more than happy to partner with and back up their teachers! :)

I agree with GB to some extent that the government is too invasive though not always because it's pressing to be but often because citizens acquiesce too readily our rights and responsibilities.  Some parents do hope to partner with teachers in the ongoing process of education but many others, either because they have had negative experiences themselves or are just overwhelmed with their own lives, yield to the experts control of a child's education. I think we see the same thing happen with feeling any sort of obligation to those less fortunate in our communities. The attitude becomes "Isn't there a government program for that?" When it should more often be "What can I do to help?" We are feeling less responsible for and to each other all the time.

The creaking is produced by my constantly having to rethink and examine my premises. Let's see...who would have liked that? Ah yes, Ms. Rand. :)