Wednesday, March 14, 2018
In times like these, Mr. Rogers
Sunday, January 07, 2018
The Culture Wars
December 17, 2008, Updated January 6, 2018
Introduction
At the 1992 Republican Party Convention, Patrick Buchanan said that, "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself” [Buchanan]. Through saying this he is credited with labeling the cultural fight in America as the “Culture Wars” [Williams 2003: 10]. The term describes a multitude of squabbles within the American community generally dealing with deeply personal issues such as control of the body and life. The sides basically divide over the traditional pathways following from Judeo-Christian history and ethics and those implied by the separation of church and state and the freedom from religious rules. The sides can be simplified into the conservative right and the liberal left, but they are often more complex.
America is not the first society to fight over such activities and positions. The original use of the term is actually German [Infoplease]. It dates to the 1870s. Kulturkampf began when the Roman Catholic Church determined the Pope to be infallible in 1870. German leadership saw this as an attempt to diminish the power of the state in southern Germany. Various laws were enacted to limit the power of the church in an attempt to bolster the much newer German state. The question was who controlled Germany: the state or the church.
Thus in postmodern America we have a cultural battle as to who controls the bodies, ethics, and morals of the American people. Does the conservative, general society have that power through their long-standing cultural sentiments; or do the minorities through expansion of the separation of church and state principle and the Bill of Rights?
History
American has always been a place of social unrest. While our elementary teachers often picture America as a place of peaceful cooperation, in the hope that we will join that pathway, American history is often a rocky road. My third-grade teacher praised the efforts of the early Spanish missionaries and explorers in South America. Their expeditions and movements were to bring something great and new to the native community. Left unsaid in the 1950s was the damage that such actions brought. Left unsaid was the personal damage of slavery and murder committed upon the native community. The Spanish even considered whether the natives were human beings or not until Bartoleme de Las Casas said that the natives indeed were, but more like children in an attempt to ease their strife. We start with idealism, but later face reality [Sendrey]. For America, what does that reality look like; some examples follow.
Postmodern Culture War begins in the 1960.
The postmodern cultural fight in America dates to the shift in cultural focus during the 1960s. That focus, in turn, is based on developments during the 1930s-1950s. Essentially, the generation going through the desperation of the Depression and World War II sought a calmer life of brighter prospects during the 1950s. Out of the great promise of the peaceful 1950s, the Baby Boom generation grew up under conditions of peace and hope.
To many, “Leave It to Beaver” epitomized the 1950s and the early 1960s. Beaver had a calm life in which there were only the so-called problems of normal growing up. The truth is that Beaver lives in a world that is without the outside pressures of economic depression and war. He was the model of what life should be in America. Children should not have to face the toughness of life. It should be a time of ease.
In the 1960s, the world and the media caught up with the new generation. While television continued its level of pleasantness, the news segments provided growing images of trouble in paradise. The new generation will be influenced by the contrast between this peacefulness and the growing pressures of reality. The major events were the assassination of President John Kennedy, followed by the growth of the Vietnam War’s presence in daily and media life. With these two the media battles to maintain its level of pleasantness, but succumbed to the pressure by mid-decade. Heroes turned into anti-heroes. Beaver’s problems seemed miniscule.
The assassination is the crucial event, but not by itself. The assassination was surrounded by the Cuban Missile Crisis, fear of the “bomb,” and the media changes. Many boomers saw parents rush them off to view what a basement bomb shelter looked like and engage in talk about whether it was worth it to get one. Bullwinkle and Rocky faced the evil Boris and Natasha; clear symbols of the danger that no longer was on the far side of the earth. It was your house in the crosshairs. In all of this, there is good reason why most boomers know exactly where they were when they heard the news about Kennedy; it was a universally shared traumatic event. This shared trauma was a known experience to their parents, but not to the boomers. The spell of the 1950s was broken.
Kennedy’s youthful approach to life and the nation was catching for boomers. They embraced it. The “First Family” record album swept the nation and made JFK and the family intimate and approachable. Now facing the reality of death, a sense of loss replaced that hope. The idealism, however, did not die. It was transformed. Gone was the rosy picture that there was nothing to change. In its place was the promise of the 1950s in the hands of high school and college age Boomers who felt empowered to create the ideal they thought had been promised? They expected better and set out to get it.
The buildup of the Vietnam War followed. With the earlier boomers in high school and college, the promises of the 1950s seem off somewhat. The promises of a better world with peace, lightness, honesty, democracy, and other wonderful things were not in the cards. The disillusionment was quiet, but widespread. One impact of those promises could not be denied. That was the idealism that they created. That idealism had been dril.ed into a generation. They felt empowered by it, and would use it to bring cultural challenge and change. The whole 1960s movement was based on a belief that change could take place and it would be good. The war became the focus for that sense of change. To change the war meant mounting a full frontal attack on the old world.
Nevertheless, the war went on. Its main stretch was from 1964 to 1973. That was a long time for Americans to watch the carnage. This idealism of the 1950s gave way to the anti-war movement of the 1960s. The 1950s zealousness with possessions brought the hippie movement. The movement tore the clothes off any cover the establishment offered. The war was for democracy until no one in Vietnam could be found who favored democracy. The war was to prevent a communalist takeover of America until the puniness of the Vietcong laid made that takeover ridiculous. Then the nation elected Richard Nixon president. Nixon isolated the protestors from the government that embraced them in the 1950s. The boomers found that their third-grade teachers had misled them if Richard Nixon was the system's choice. They were now the enemy of the society that promised them a better life than their parents did. With the caskets of friends coming home, they saw little difference between the world prior to the 1950s and the one they faced.
In 1973 the war ended, but the media impact continued. The hero in the media was now the anti-hero who exposed the system's flaws. The negative thrust of the media kept the cultural change movements going. American did not return to 1946, it was 1975, now. America could not go back. The war left the stage and the cultural issues of other movements took the center.
Before moving forward in time, it should be pointed out that the normal view taken of the 1960s assumes that all of America walked in the same shoes and marched together toward the common goal. This has never been true of America, and certainly was not true of the 1960s. While the media led the way, the mass of American youth only followed slowly. The best evidence for this is that by the time most became aware of the hippie movement in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco, the movement had moved on. Most people who enjoyed Woodstock watched the film and were not there. The values of the movement were taken on in pieces. Kids in Wisconsin might embrace granny glasses as they showed up on store shelves, but they were not the innovators of granny glasses and they embraced them as “cool” not as political directives.
The focus shifted toward those issues that represented freedom to the former movement participants. Among the goals were prosperity for the American people, environmental preservation and improvement, sexual freedom, verbal freedom, non-industrial education with a focus on the person not the resulting worker, an end to the corporate dominance of lifestyles and politics, and freedom from religious dogma. The cultural battleground was set.
The leading force was the media. With the morality older codes gone, movies and television championed pushing the envelope. Shows sought to go just a little further than before in the name of that being what people wanted and what was necessary. To push was the goal. Attempts to limit this were easily discredited by media. The labeling of television and movies only meant that parents had a code to look at if they wanted to. The pushing went ahead.
Of course, through all of this there was opposition. The “silent majority” of Richard Nixon was an early anti-change movement, now revisited by the Trump-based movement. . The more Christian-oriented movements of the 1980s and 1990s did better. They actually had a real world existence with people in positions to do something.
Issues Today
This brings us to today’s postmodern issues. The focus on the body and personal freedoms remains an important part of this fight. The body is the heart of morality. That is what this has all been about. Can government limit the freedom of individuals where their bodies were concerned? After that the issues mush outward to the ethnic and racial group’s position in society. They bring a group focus to freedom and prosperity.
The main recent issues involve gay/lesbian rights and marriage, abortion, bilingual education, multiculturalism, political correctness, and decency. Associated with them are corporate issues of privacy, product safety, and pollution.
(1) Abortion. The issues involved are numerous, but taking the main stage in national attention has always been the abortion issue. The national position supports abortion with local units attempting to place limits of varying kinds on it. The conservative movement has not done well in opposing the spread opf abortion. Indeed government payment issues seem the main focus that remains in this area despite attempts by state units to impose special restrictions in the few areas open to them.
(2) GLBT. Gay marriage, transgender persons in the military, transgender use of bathrooms, and transgender positions on sports teams have been more recent issues growing to change points during the Obama years. Society continues to deal with these issues, but like abortion, the conservative stands on the losing side of a shift towards rights for these peoples. We do want to note the imposition of these areas of belief by the left upon the right and middle. This one has an aura of government imposition in its swift arrival as an issue and its swift imposition of change.
(3) Demise of the “law.” Unfaced by the left has been the growing sense that America is not a “nation of Laws” any more. While the right has been fully supportive of the law over time, and the left has been iffy but officially supportive, the immigration issue and other issues have raised the question of whether America is a nation of laws any more. The left relies on the law to impose its changes, yet in championing the ignoring of the law, as with immigration, the right is slowing beginning to lose that respect it has always had for the law. One wonders when one will start to see and hear claims that if they do not have to obey the law, why should we? Picture a case of discrimination against an illegal alien. If they can disobey the law on border crossing, why should not other be allowed to ignore the law on not discrimination against the, Judicial nullification only requires one vote on a jury to make it work.
Conclusion
America has always been a place of internal disputes. While priding itself in its internal unity, that unity has always been incomplete. Currently America is seriously divided by a “Culture War”. People are seriously divided over how the society is to control aspects of human life. These issues show little indication of being resolved or going away.
Bibliography
Anderson, Terry. 1999. “The 1960s Benefited American Culture.” In Mary E. Williams [ed.] 1999. Culture Wars: opposing viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Answersplease.com. 2005. “Salem witch trials.” http://www.answers.com/topic/salem-witch-trials.
Buchanan, Patrick J. 1992. “1992 Republican National Convention Speech in Houston, Texas”, http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html.
Economic Research Service. 2003. Percentage change in the nonmetro Hispanic population 1990-2000. United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/RaceAndEthnic/HispanicMap.htm
Election Committee of the County of Orange. 2005. “Civil Union/Gay Marriage”. Map. http://www.eccopac.org/Laws/LawsFrameSet.html?=LawsMarriage.html
Infoplease Encyclopedia. 2005. “Kulturkampf” . http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0828342.html.
Kilpinen, Jon T. 2005. “Leading Church Bodies 2000”. Map. Valpariso University. http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/church_bodies.gif.
Polling Report, Inc. 2005. “Law and Civil Rights.” http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
_____. 2005. “Abortion and Birth Control. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm.
Sendrey, Paul. 1988. “Sixteenth Century Perspectives of Latin America: Civil or Savage.” VHS Tape. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Television Services.
Thomas, Cal.. 1999. “The 1960s Damaged American Culture.” In Mary E. Williams [ed.] 1999. Culture Wars: opposing viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Williams, Mary E [ed.]. 2003. Culture Wars: opposing viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Introduction
At the 1992 Republican Party Convention, Patrick Buchanan said that, "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself” [Buchanan]. Through saying this he is credited with labeling the cultural fight in America as the “Culture Wars” [Williams 2003: 10]. The term describes a multitude of squabbles within the American community generally dealing with deeply personal issues such as control of the body and life. The sides basically divide over the traditional pathways following from Judeo-Christian history and ethics and those implied by the separation of church and state and the freedom from religious rules. The sides can be simplified into the conservative right and the liberal left, but they are often more complex.
America is not the first society to fight over such activities and positions. The original use of the term is actually German [Infoplease]. It dates to the 1870s. Kulturkampf began when the Roman Catholic Church determined the Pope to be infallible in 1870. German leadership saw this as an attempt to diminish the power of the state in southern Germany. Various laws were enacted to limit the power of the church in an attempt to bolster the much newer German state. The question was who controlled Germany: the state or the church.
Thus in postmodern America we have a cultural battle as to who controls the bodies, ethics, and morals of the American people. Does the conservative, general society have that power through their long-standing cultural sentiments; or do the minorities through expansion of the separation of church and state principle and the Bill of Rights?
History
American has always been a place of social unrest. While our elementary teachers often picture America as a place of peaceful cooperation, in the hope that we will join that pathway, American history is often a rocky road. My third-grade teacher praised the efforts of the early Spanish missionaries and explorers in South America. Their expeditions and movements were to bring something great and new to the native community. Left unsaid in the 1950s was the damage that such actions brought. Left unsaid was the personal damage of slavery and murder committed upon the native community. The Spanish even considered whether the natives were human beings or not until Bartoleme de Las Casas said that the natives indeed were, but more like children in an attempt to ease their strife. We start with idealism, but later face reality [Sendrey]. For America, what does that reality look like; some examples follow.
- Colonial Fighting. The colonies were characterized by infighting. Early Americans already brought their neighbors to court more than the Europeans. North Carolina had an East-West fight before the Revolution. A full third of the population opposed the Revolution. Some became the base population of Ontario, Canada after the war.
- Distrust. The underlying theme of the Constitution is distrust. While that document unified and made possible America, it was written under the assumption that government would be used to exploit people unless carefully restrained. This explains why most parliamentary systems have five-year terms, while our House has only two years. The Electoral College works under the assumption that average Americans might not know how properly to elect a president. It goes on.
- Slavery. Slavery and the Civil War, perhaps, epitomize this issue. The Constitution contained a prohibition, conceived in compromise, that no discussion of changing the status of slaves and slavery with in United States would take place until 1808. This was listed in Article I, section 9, clause 1 of the Constitution. This putting off dealing with the humanitarian issue points to an inability even to see the nation getting underway if it had to deal with a real solution to this issue. In a sense they were right because only the Civil War brought the solution. As we bring this issue forward in time, the Civil Rights Movement, starting in 1954, and its opponents brought a serious internal fight over such a set of basic rights. As the prime period for development of the current cultural wars will be the 1960s, the prominence of the Civil Rights Movement in life and media will obviously play a central role in showing particularly young Americans that something was amiss. The Senate has a six-year term so they can resist change.
- Money. While we grow up being told that government is based on high ideals, I recall my high school history teacher’s proviso to “…always look for the money” when you were looking at American History. One finds that our higher values almost always succumb to the money factor. The high-level talk from Washington cloaks the underlying movement of money.
Postmodern Culture War begins in the 1960.
The postmodern cultural fight in America dates to the shift in cultural focus during the 1960s. That focus, in turn, is based on developments during the 1930s-1950s. Essentially, the generation going through the desperation of the Depression and World War II sought a calmer life of brighter prospects during the 1950s. Out of the great promise of the peaceful 1950s, the Baby Boom generation grew up under conditions of peace and hope.
To many, “Leave It to Beaver” epitomized the 1950s and the early 1960s. Beaver had a calm life in which there were only the so-called problems of normal growing up. The truth is that Beaver lives in a world that is without the outside pressures of economic depression and war. He was the model of what life should be in America. Children should not have to face the toughness of life. It should be a time of ease.
In the 1960s, the world and the media caught up with the new generation. While television continued its level of pleasantness, the news segments provided growing images of trouble in paradise. The new generation will be influenced by the contrast between this peacefulness and the growing pressures of reality. The major events were the assassination of President John Kennedy, followed by the growth of the Vietnam War’s presence in daily and media life. With these two the media battles to maintain its level of pleasantness, but succumbed to the pressure by mid-decade. Heroes turned into anti-heroes. Beaver’s problems seemed miniscule.
The assassination is the crucial event, but not by itself. The assassination was surrounded by the Cuban Missile Crisis, fear of the “bomb,” and the media changes. Many boomers saw parents rush them off to view what a basement bomb shelter looked like and engage in talk about whether it was worth it to get one. Bullwinkle and Rocky faced the evil Boris and Natasha; clear symbols of the danger that no longer was on the far side of the earth. It was your house in the crosshairs. In all of this, there is good reason why most boomers know exactly where they were when they heard the news about Kennedy; it was a universally shared traumatic event. This shared trauma was a known experience to their parents, but not to the boomers. The spell of the 1950s was broken.
Kennedy’s youthful approach to life and the nation was catching for boomers. They embraced it. The “First Family” record album swept the nation and made JFK and the family intimate and approachable. Now facing the reality of death, a sense of loss replaced that hope. The idealism, however, did not die. It was transformed. Gone was the rosy picture that there was nothing to change. In its place was the promise of the 1950s in the hands of high school and college age Boomers who felt empowered to create the ideal they thought had been promised? They expected better and set out to get it.
The buildup of the Vietnam War followed. With the earlier boomers in high school and college, the promises of the 1950s seem off somewhat. The promises of a better world with peace, lightness, honesty, democracy, and other wonderful things were not in the cards. The disillusionment was quiet, but widespread. One impact of those promises could not be denied. That was the idealism that they created. That idealism had been dril.ed into a generation. They felt empowered by it, and would use it to bring cultural challenge and change. The whole 1960s movement was based on a belief that change could take place and it would be good. The war became the focus for that sense of change. To change the war meant mounting a full frontal attack on the old world.
Nevertheless, the war went on. Its main stretch was from 1964 to 1973. That was a long time for Americans to watch the carnage. This idealism of the 1950s gave way to the anti-war movement of the 1960s. The 1950s zealousness with possessions brought the hippie movement. The movement tore the clothes off any cover the establishment offered. The war was for democracy until no one in Vietnam could be found who favored democracy. The war was to prevent a communalist takeover of America until the puniness of the Vietcong laid made that takeover ridiculous. Then the nation elected Richard Nixon president. Nixon isolated the protestors from the government that embraced them in the 1950s. The boomers found that their third-grade teachers had misled them if Richard Nixon was the system's choice. They were now the enemy of the society that promised them a better life than their parents did. With the caskets of friends coming home, they saw little difference between the world prior to the 1950s and the one they faced.
In 1973 the war ended, but the media impact continued. The hero in the media was now the anti-hero who exposed the system's flaws. The negative thrust of the media kept the cultural change movements going. American did not return to 1946, it was 1975, now. America could not go back. The war left the stage and the cultural issues of other movements took the center.
Before moving forward in time, it should be pointed out that the normal view taken of the 1960s assumes that all of America walked in the same shoes and marched together toward the common goal. This has never been true of America, and certainly was not true of the 1960s. While the media led the way, the mass of American youth only followed slowly. The best evidence for this is that by the time most became aware of the hippie movement in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco, the movement had moved on. Most people who enjoyed Woodstock watched the film and were not there. The values of the movement were taken on in pieces. Kids in Wisconsin might embrace granny glasses as they showed up on store shelves, but they were not the innovators of granny glasses and they embraced them as “cool” not as political directives.
The focus shifted toward those issues that represented freedom to the former movement participants. Among the goals were prosperity for the American people, environmental preservation and improvement, sexual freedom, verbal freedom, non-industrial education with a focus on the person not the resulting worker, an end to the corporate dominance of lifestyles and politics, and freedom from religious dogma. The cultural battleground was set.
The leading force was the media. With the morality older codes gone, movies and television championed pushing the envelope. Shows sought to go just a little further than before in the name of that being what people wanted and what was necessary. To push was the goal. Attempts to limit this were easily discredited by media. The labeling of television and movies only meant that parents had a code to look at if they wanted to. The pushing went ahead.
Of course, through all of this there was opposition. The “silent majority” of Richard Nixon was an early anti-change movement, now revisited by the Trump-based movement. . The more Christian-oriented movements of the 1980s and 1990s did better. They actually had a real world existence with people in positions to do something.
Issues Today
This brings us to today’s postmodern issues. The focus on the body and personal freedoms remains an important part of this fight. The body is the heart of morality. That is what this has all been about. Can government limit the freedom of individuals where their bodies were concerned? After that the issues mush outward to the ethnic and racial group’s position in society. They bring a group focus to freedom and prosperity.
The main recent issues involve gay/lesbian rights and marriage, abortion, bilingual education, multiculturalism, political correctness, and decency. Associated with them are corporate issues of privacy, product safety, and pollution.
(1) Abortion. The issues involved are numerous, but taking the main stage in national attention has always been the abortion issue. The national position supports abortion with local units attempting to place limits of varying kinds on it. The conservative movement has not done well in opposing the spread opf abortion. Indeed government payment issues seem the main focus that remains in this area despite attempts by state units to impose special restrictions in the few areas open to them.
(2) GLBT. Gay marriage, transgender persons in the military, transgender use of bathrooms, and transgender positions on sports teams have been more recent issues growing to change points during the Obama years. Society continues to deal with these issues, but like abortion, the conservative stands on the losing side of a shift towards rights for these peoples. We do want to note the imposition of these areas of belief by the left upon the right and middle. This one has an aura of government imposition in its swift arrival as an issue and its swift imposition of change.
(3) Demise of the “law.” Unfaced by the left has been the growing sense that America is not a “nation of Laws” any more. While the right has been fully supportive of the law over time, and the left has been iffy but officially supportive, the immigration issue and other issues have raised the question of whether America is a nation of laws any more. The left relies on the law to impose its changes, yet in championing the ignoring of the law, as with immigration, the right is slowing beginning to lose that respect it has always had for the law. One wonders when one will start to see and hear claims that if they do not have to obey the law, why should we? Picture a case of discrimination against an illegal alien. If they can disobey the law on border crossing, why should not other be allowed to ignore the law on not discrimination against the, Judicial nullification only requires one vote on a jury to make it work.
Conclusion
America has always been a place of internal disputes. While priding itself in its internal unity, that unity has always been incomplete. Currently America is seriously divided by a “Culture War”. People are seriously divided over how the society is to control aspects of human life. These issues show little indication of being resolved or going away.
Bibliography
Anderson, Terry. 1999. “The 1960s Benefited American Culture.” In Mary E. Williams [ed.] 1999. Culture Wars: opposing viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Answersplease.com. 2005. “Salem witch trials.” http://www.answers.com/topic/salem-witch-trials.
Buchanan, Patrick J. 1992. “1992 Republican National Convention Speech in Houston, Texas”, http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html.
Economic Research Service. 2003. Percentage change in the nonmetro Hispanic population 1990-2000. United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/RaceAndEthnic/HispanicMap.htm
Election Committee of the County of Orange. 2005. “Civil Union/Gay Marriage”. Map. http://www.eccopac.org/Laws/LawsFrameSet.html?=LawsMarriage.html
Infoplease Encyclopedia. 2005. “Kulturkampf” . http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0828342.html.
Kilpinen, Jon T. 2005. “Leading Church Bodies 2000”. Map. Valpariso University. http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/church_bodies.gif.
Polling Report, Inc. 2005. “Law and Civil Rights.” http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
_____. 2005. “Abortion and Birth Control. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm.
Sendrey, Paul. 1988. “Sixteenth Century Perspectives of Latin America: Civil or Savage.” VHS Tape. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Television Services.
Thomas, Cal.. 1999. “The 1960s Damaged American Culture.” In Mary E. Williams [ed.] 1999. Culture Wars: opposing viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Williams, Mary E [ed.]. 2003. Culture Wars: opposing viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Campaign 2016
Where does one begin. The gang at the lake has been sitting back and watching it all happen. An amazing election season. The most amazing thing is the utter shock and misunderstanding displayed by the mainstream GOP folk. They truly have and still have, no idea of how far they have become near traitors and idiots to their following. The “anger” of the Trump crowd mystifies them. It should not. They need only look at their dubious performance over that last eight years to see that they spoke one way and acted another.
Mitch McConnell's actions are the best example. Bills not pursued because the Democrats might filibuster. The Cruz filibuster brought the ceiling on him, but Democrats would assume the positions of gods? Let their filibuster shut the government down. Let them take the honest blame for once. Instead he was afraid they might speak. Oh the horror as Sheldon might say.
An in the end , if you look the last few years over, even the most minimal of cuts has been restored. Could they even go for a 1% cut in the automatic 8% raise each year? Nope. The GOP failed to understand who voted for them. They should not be mystified, they should be ashamed.
The other issue they failed to grasp is that the whole Democratic Party platform has emotions at its base. It has been hard to attack because they are always emotional. The Biggest thing Trump has put his finger on, is that the GOP can be emotional too. Just look at that border response that started the Trump movement. It was all emotion. The has been the key to the Democrats moves for decades. Child do not get educated. Grandma is pushed off a cliff. People starve even if 50 cents is cut from the budget for the Tea Office (inspects tea). Emotion, always emotion. Now the GOP has it, too.
Thursday, April 07, 2016
Liberal Inconsistency with the Law
The LA Times article on the defacing of a Styrofoam wall at Loyola-Marymount College that was decorated with statements in support of illegal immigrants raises an interesting point. While fully supporting a group in open violation of the law, they want everyone else to obey the law. They were “dismayed.” They have not thought about the implications of giving the law status as right only when we want to and being able to violate/ignore it when we want also. If they openly champion ignoring the law, then everyone else is free in their world to ignore the law, also.
We have seen this phenomena over and over with the left. #blacklivesmatter disrupts events and takes over public and private areas expecting their ignoring the law and decency is just fine, but let someone challenge them , as at the Trump rallies, and wow where are those wonderful police to arrest those violators. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, making a good reason to support the law in its forms.
Monday, February 09, 2015
The Information Diet Discussed
Comments on the book by Clay Johnson. The Information Diet.
Johnson’s basic premise is that we are so overloaded with information of such poor quality that our need to get away from it, limit it, and improve the quality of what we take in should be treated like going on a diet. We need to each reestablish our ability to find the true “facts” that relate to our life and society. We need a more traditional approach to obtaining knowledge that will give us a realistic picture of reality. He posits that postmodern media, and the technology they use, introduces bias and fails to provide a good view of reality.
Now on the question of too much information, one can hardly disagree. We hear of people walking into traffic and pools while texting, we hear of people disturbing movie viewers with smart phone lights and talk, and we even hear of people interrupting sex to answer a phone or email. We spend large amounts of time with email boxes filled with a few valuable messages among a lot of junk. These indicate trouble. He is right.
He does have a good hand on the problems of postmodern life. Information just exceeds our ability to take it all in. It becomes a race to try and do so. The more we try the less we truly get. To make it worse, media distorts information to make more and make it quick. To take our lives back by finding true “facts” the old fashioned way via our own research is laudable. This is all good in concept.
It is flawed in that he has gone in the wrong direction as to where to find those “facts.” He sees “facts” in an objective, scientific world that has never existed. All is subjective. Even a broadcaster that all agree is not subjective, has to edit news, thus introducing subjective values. Which news is important is not an element subject to some ultimate truth. This fact or story is relevant and this is not. That world does not exist.
Nothing exists outside its societal and personal constructs. Experiencing something so simple as “black” cannot be interpreted outside its societal and personal references. Black is the color of mourning to some and excitement to others. It suggests death and the absence of color, yet can have tremendous meaning of a different nature as a element of race. It can be a mark of bigotry as well as a sign of a basic dress most women are in possess ion of and search for the perfect one. How can one be objective when people define even the words by different meaning in different contexts?
Johnson suggests that if we only put aside the regular media and much of the new web media we will find “true” facts. His search for objectivity is only that he dislikes what he hears and assumes if he begins over with only self-discovered and research “true” “:facts” they will be objective, totally removed from the bias other place on them. Wrong. All they have is his subjectivity rather than those of others. There is no difference.
He makes this clear in his liberal bias. While he includes the liberal media, his wrath is hugely spent on FOX News. Because it is right wing it must contain bias. The left has bias too, but one has to read longer to pile up that sense in the book. Just where he goes with his plans suggests that with “true facts” one would take a liberal stance.
The question he refuses to realize is that FOX does not pick up watchers and readers because it offers something new to which one is converted. It touches a note in people’s own thought and world that brings them in. They see a world they do not identify with on NBC and ABC so they gravitate to FOX where the world is one they support. That world is as real as any other one. If one shares traditional values it must be that one has been sold these by charlatans. He fails to see that FOX has these values because people have them already. They find facts with truth there. They find a world they want no part of on ABC and NBC.
The book is certainly a good read and restructuring one’s life to find better sources of more limited materials is a positive step to take. I have witnessed many students so devoted to their smart phones that one could see their grades flushing away, yet try and stop them and that they are addicted is the only conclusion one can make. Many need an information diet. But it must reflect their own world and not a new one that someone appreciates because it is his.
Johnson’s basic premise is that we are so overloaded with information of such poor quality that our need to get away from it, limit it, and improve the quality of what we take in should be treated like going on a diet. We need to each reestablish our ability to find the true “facts” that relate to our life and society. We need a more traditional approach to obtaining knowledge that will give us a realistic picture of reality. He posits that postmodern media, and the technology they use, introduces bias and fails to provide a good view of reality.
Now on the question of too much information, one can hardly disagree. We hear of people walking into traffic and pools while texting, we hear of people disturbing movie viewers with smart phone lights and talk, and we even hear of people interrupting sex to answer a phone or email. We spend large amounts of time with email boxes filled with a few valuable messages among a lot of junk. These indicate trouble. He is right.
He does have a good hand on the problems of postmodern life. Information just exceeds our ability to take it all in. It becomes a race to try and do so. The more we try the less we truly get. To make it worse, media distorts information to make more and make it quick. To take our lives back by finding true “facts” the old fashioned way via our own research is laudable. This is all good in concept.
It is flawed in that he has gone in the wrong direction as to where to find those “facts.” He sees “facts” in an objective, scientific world that has never existed. All is subjective. Even a broadcaster that all agree is not subjective, has to edit news, thus introducing subjective values. Which news is important is not an element subject to some ultimate truth. This fact or story is relevant and this is not. That world does not exist.
Nothing exists outside its societal and personal constructs. Experiencing something so simple as “black” cannot be interpreted outside its societal and personal references. Black is the color of mourning to some and excitement to others. It suggests death and the absence of color, yet can have tremendous meaning of a different nature as a element of race. It can be a mark of bigotry as well as a sign of a basic dress most women are in possess ion of and search for the perfect one. How can one be objective when people define even the words by different meaning in different contexts?
Johnson suggests that if we only put aside the regular media and much of the new web media we will find “true” facts. His search for objectivity is only that he dislikes what he hears and assumes if he begins over with only self-discovered and research “true” “:facts” they will be objective, totally removed from the bias other place on them. Wrong. All they have is his subjectivity rather than those of others. There is no difference.
He makes this clear in his liberal bias. While he includes the liberal media, his wrath is hugely spent on FOX News. Because it is right wing it must contain bias. The left has bias too, but one has to read longer to pile up that sense in the book. Just where he goes with his plans suggests that with “true facts” one would take a liberal stance.
The question he refuses to realize is that FOX does not pick up watchers and readers because it offers something new to which one is converted. It touches a note in people’s own thought and world that brings them in. They see a world they do not identify with on NBC and ABC so they gravitate to FOX where the world is one they support. That world is as real as any other one. If one shares traditional values it must be that one has been sold these by charlatans. He fails to see that FOX has these values because people have them already. They find facts with truth there. They find a world they want no part of on ABC and NBC.
The book is certainly a good read and restructuring one’s life to find better sources of more limited materials is a positive step to take. I have witnessed many students so devoted to their smart phones that one could see their grades flushing away, yet try and stop them and that they are addicted is the only conclusion one can make. Many need an information diet. But it must reflect their own world and not a new one that someone appreciates because it is his.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Cabaret is us
Cabaret [1972] follows the life of American Sally Bowles and her compatriots at the Kit-Kat Club in Berlin in the 1930s. Joel Grey, as the emcee in the stage show, states the purpose of the show as being that life outside is disappointing, but here everything is beautiful. Put that outside truly outside your mind and enjoy. While it is clearly Berlin in the 1930s, is it so much more, like America in 2014? The parallels are multiple and scary. Strictly as Germany in the 1930s it shows a world quickly being overtaken by totalitarian fascism with many ugly sides. The film has a giant elephant in the room throughout it and the cast is in the process of accepting and/or adjusting to it in a clear show of decadent behavior.
The Cabaret makes light and fun of the world for a mixed audience of damaged souls. It promotes and exposes the corrupt world while only hinting about the fascist elephant. Enjoy!, escape!, We the future looks changing and disastrous. “Money Makes the World Go Around” mimics the greed of America from bottom to top, Sally Bowles saying”…when I go I’, going like Elsie” forecasts enjoyment of a valueless life that was their fate and increasingly ours.
The Nazis singing in the park and the masses joining in as those more aware cringe. Americans cheer as their land of freedom becomes totalitarian. Totalitarian? Yes. Name an area of life that is not controlled or influenced by government, and ridiculed if ti is not? It is impossible actually as the question lacks an answer.
So Americans party in ignorance of the impending doom. In Cabaret they find illumination too late. Will we?
Of course a major difference is that the Nazis beat up the opposition while in America they are just marginalized via ridicule. Publically ridiculed they are disenfranchised. They are a silly or worse part of an equation where they work out to a zero. You can tell it easily because it is the place the fascists violate their pc rules. They are supporters of women’s right yet national insult and degrade any woman not in line with fascist policy. Note the disenfranchisement of the Tea Party as racist or stupid for not wanting to spend into the ground.
“Tomorrow Belongs to Me” is the key. The elites tell the lower classes of the rewards if American belongs to them while making their deals with business.
And in America. The dancing girls dance as the band plays on as the fascists’ wreak their damage. Cabaret is Berlin in the 19030s and Chicago in the 2010s.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
The Choice
Robert Graves, in I, Claudius, had Emperor Claudius, when looking over the mess around him him and feeling powerless, say “Let all the poisons in the mud hatch out.”
This is the strategy the Conservative side should take. Do nothing but let the impending failure and mess happen. The biggest possible mark against the program will be to let it happen as written. Even the Obama regime has admitted things are not going well in some areas (hence the waivers and delay of imposing on business). If the Congress itself does not want it, how awful can it possibly become. They point to successes only by using their interpretation of data that others see the other way (many see costs of insurance up while Obama looks at numbers to talk down in the face of up). If they misdefined the affordable in terms of individuals so some families will have to forgo subsidies. Let it all happen. They wrote it and they connived to pass it (if what they did counts as legal passing).
The abomination’s worst enemy is itself. Look at the writers of the bill. Look at the ignorance of those voting on the bill of the bill. As Pelosi said, “We have to pass this bill in order to find out what it says.” Let is happen. “Let all the poisons in the mud hatch out.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)