Baggage Check

Professor J,

Now let's see, where were we? Ah yes, Glenn Beck on environmental  issues.

I'll say that overall I agree with you. Beck does a lousy job of backing up any of his claims. He'd have gained a lot more credibility for something more thought out and with any research he'd done end noted. I got the feeling that he felt the message (of the entire book) urgent and rushed to publish. He does a poor job of making his point, at least for anyone who is likely to want to know exactly what his sources were. It reads as a bit of a rant.

He makes it clear he doesn't believe in global warming and thinks it's a scam. I think he makes a huge mistake in not allowing for the possibility that he may be wrong. On the other hand here's where I think the global warming crowd messed up early on and brought some problems on themselves:

Framing the discussion in such a way as to ask people to put lots of faith in current available data and how it's interpreted, claiming the debate over, and treating anyone with questions like knuckle dragging neanderthals for questioning the science. Yet, what do scientists do? They question existing science all the time. Questioning is not the same thing however as forming an opinion, then rejecting whatever evidence may present itself (which is what I think we see are likely seeing with GB) or continuing to argue and delay for one's own selfish purposes (what we see with oil companies). But legitimate questions and concerns--why would that bother anyone?

Having Al Gore as the messenger (though not alone he's gotten the most attention and is certainly the "face" of global warming) made it a political issue which it needn't be. His cause would probably be further down the road if someone outside of partisan politics had led the charge. It would have garnered less attention, but what attention there was would probably have been more positive and opinions and attitudes on the issue would not have fallen along party lines so clearly. (I know we shouldn't judge the message by the messenger, but in this case he seems to detract attention away from the message.)

The hypocrisy of many including AG make it hard for them to be taken seriously. Their personal lifestyles in many cases aren't very good examples.   People pay attention to behavior and if the guy who wants the rest of us to be so concerned can't adjust...

Too much focus on catastrophic ideas and imagery. It seems like a good idea to galvanize support but when people feel the problems are beyond them and answers are too complex and will need to be solved over the long term (we are such a short sighted culture) they lose interest or feel defeated and give up. The same attitudes prevail even when the choices are individual ones like finances or healthy lifestyle choices. People often cannot behave with the future in mind even when change in behavior would benefit them personally and directly. We are a people that has lost any sense of delayed gratification, people need to know that there can be some immediate benefit or at least intrinsic value in change or sacrifice.


Demanding ideological group think before we can take action. Let the global warming doubters doubt. If they exhibit the behavior you want who cares if they do it for environmental, economic, health or some other reason? You wrote:

Look at what is best, what we really want. Don’t we want clean air, water, food? Don’t we want a nature that doesn’t have to adapt so rapidly? Don’t we prefer forests to erosion, loss of agricultural soil, mudslides, choking fires, and the violent desperation that comes from poverty and scarcity of ecological resources?

This is the way to re-frame the debate. It's more than just semantics. It is saying that there are reasons that we all share to do the hard things without attacking anyone who still has questions and doubts.  People are going to be more easily convinced that water, air, and soil need to be cared for and that resources need certain protections . It also lets the environmentalists off the hook for constantly defending the global warming/climate change theory (which they've spent a lot of time doing this winter) and in the event that evidence in the future should arise that disproves it, no harm is done as they could point out that it hadn't been their main focus anyway.

The question you want people to ask isn't about whether or not any of the weather is caused by ongoing climate change but as you point out whether or not any of what we are doing now is sustainable.

The Baggage:

I'll start where you ended and agree with you that overall people do tend to love him or hate him. Personally I like him and for all the positive things about him that you indicated but more so because up until recently he was the only one saying some of those things (Who else besides perhaps Ron Paul is saying America can fail?). If you can't quite figure him out it's probably because he is (like all of us) a work in progress. I love his passion. (Though I admit I often cringe and think, "Oh, don't say THAT.") Give me a passionate person to disagree with over apathy any day. I have a feeling his (perceived) sincerity is the real secret to his success. People are starving for someone who will show they care and enough for tears to well up in a man's eyes when he talks about his love of country and protecting liberty for the next generation? Oh yeah, I'm a sucker for that.

I'm guessing his slanted reading list is due to his feeling that everyone has been taught and has repeatedly heard the other side. He thinks the media and those pesky  professors ;)  have been taking care of that. He's trying to bring what he sees as balance, though people in the center, shying away from both extremes, may disagree. He isn't trying to give both sides and I never got the feeling he was leading the reader to think he was.  As I've said before he does instruct people not to listen to him or believe him but to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

He often disparages himself with a self deprecating humor ("I'm just a (pick one) rodeo clown, alcoholic, self educated DJ."). I haven't figured out if he says those things out of humility and a desire to be honest or so he can hide behind them when he and his ideas are strongly criticized. If it's the latter then this housewife takes issue with it for obvious reasons.

Beck often criticizes the book Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, which he paints in a sinister light. It's another case, as some of the ones that you point out, where he seems blinded by his revulsion for certain individuals or ideas. He has a problem with the (fairly unintrusive) behavior altering methods suggested in the book, but never acknowledges how corporations use these same tactics ( e.g., product placement) and far more powerful ones to influence behavior of consumers all the time. Why in the world does he think all those companies spend millions on advertising every year?

The voucher system is not a thorough solution and neither are lots of other similar things put into action like charter schools. Sometimes there is individual success but not widespread. The kids who are successful generally have parents who are involved and concerned and who are going to see to it that their children are educated, no matter what kind of system is in place even if it means taking up the slack at home. It is the children who lack parental support and involvement who are cast aside and need the most help. 

My daughter's college sociology class once did an interesting exercise, you may be familiar with. The professor took them outside, had them line up and he read a series of questions like did they have more than a particular number of books in their home, had they traveled, had they been to museums, plays, etc. They were to take a step for every question they could say yes to. At the end they were told to look around. The disparity was shocking and eye opening to her.  She didn't relate this story to me and wonder where were the teachers of all those people so far behind her. She asked, "What were their PARENTS doing for 18 years?" Add to that the lack of trust between people now and it is probably harder for a concerned teacher, coach, or neighbor to step in now and take up the slack.  The problems run deep and wide.

Home schooling (again): Thorny doesn't begin to describe! Your comment "Often superior, it can also be both a contributing cause and contributing effect of our lack of community" may be true in some ways. Though I'm not sure that children are more community minded placed together in classrooms all day with their peers having contact with a handful of adults in authority than they are when they are out and about in that community between lessons, at the bank, the grocery, doing volunteer work, etc.  The "socialization" issue is discussed ad nauseum at home school conferences and meetings. Parents constantly worry over how much is enough not to mention how much is too much. Like methods and curriculum there isn't any pat answer that will suit every child, family, community.

I've seen HS parents whose methods and tenacity I envied and I've seen some doing it so badly it caused me to think their children should be in school. It has a lot of built in problems when compared to traditional schooling (which of course has its own). Teachers for instance tend to teach subjects they are passionate about. A child in a school setting is likely getting a math teacher who loves math, a science teacher who is passionate about science, etc. Parents taking on the role are naturally going to be less enthusiastic about some subjects than others and it's necessary at times to fill the gap with tutoring, co-ops and the like, which most people do now. Seeking out help used to feel a bit risky. Early on we were all afraid someone might report us when the laws were less favorable, today it is far less isolating.

Personally I thought it was more fun when it felt somewhat subversive. ;)

There isn't going to be a perfect system for educating every child any more than there is going to be a perfect curriculum for every subject, but we could certainly do better.  I'd like to see more choice, the money attached to the child (as in our previously discussed Belgium model), and apprentice programs for students whose interests don't necessarily require college. I think in many ways the attitude that everyone needs to go to college has had negative repercussions.

I also think we waste an unbelievable amount of talent in our communities. Some subjects that get foisted off on coaches who are reluctant to teach them like economics or health could easily be taught by retired professionals in finance or medicine. People are retiring and then living many years and I'll bet if helpful programs were in place to ease the process lots of them would flock to the aid of kids in their communities to teach subjects they are passionate about and have years of experience in.


I thought it was an interesting idea to include the original Common Sense, thereby putting it into the hands of many people, who had perhaps, never read it.