A couple of days ago I wrote a rather long piece about morality and the law. To put it simply, every single law ever enacted is an attempt to force someone's version of morality onto whoever is being affected by that law. In a republic like ours the laws are supposed to be a reflection of the moral code of the people and their leaders. I happen to believe that the vast majority of Americans, whether they be religious believers or not, share a somewhat similar morality based on Judeo-Christian principles. I also happen to believe that an alarming number of so called "elites" in the government, the media, big business and academia operate under a radically different code, based on atheistic utilitarianism.
I think the vast majority of people in this country would agree that lying (under most circumstances) is bad. Atheists don't like liars any more than devout Catholics do. Yet our elected leaders (of both parties) lie constantly. They are expert liars. Their lies are so large and so numerous that most of us wouldn't believe them if they told us the sky was blue and the grass was green. We even expect them to lie. They lie, and then lie about lying. (How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.) The news media is just as bad. Anyone in the news media who says they are unbiased or objective is full of crap. Only an ignorant fool really believes that entities like MSNBC or Fox News are either fair or balanced. They are neither and we know it and watch anyway. Why do they lie? Their moral code is different from ours. For them the truth doesn't matter at all. For them, gaining power is the only good, losing power is the only bad.
How do they get away with it? Ignorance and apathy. Most Americans are now completely ignorant when it comes to history, economics and political science. Ask the average American if they know the difference between socialism and Free Market Capitalism and his eyes will glaze over. Ask her how a bill gets passed into law or how a person gets appointed to the Supreme Court and they will stare at you with a slack jaw and shrug their shoulders. Heck, most Americans probably don't know who we fought against in World War II. We don't know, and we don't want to know. I've said before that we are fat, dumb and happy. We don't care anymore. Unless if affects us directly (and then it's too late) we just don't give a damn. And because we don't know the important things anymore, these folks, whose only moral good is to increase their own power, can tell us anything and we won't know the difference. We don't know history, so they can make the same stupid decisions that caused so much trouble the last time. We don't know how our economy works, so they can do things that cost us our very livelihoods and we have no idea why or how it happened. We don't hold them accountable. We just keep electing them. Their power grows, and our freedoms diminish.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "from bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." - Alexander Frazier Tytler 1776
Monday, November 23, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Legislating Morality
Well, an awful lot has happened since I last posted in January. I started off so well and then I just got lazy. I'd think of something to post at an inappropriate time or place (in the shower, at work or in a meeting) and then when I had time to write I just couldn't muster the creative energy. I will try to do better. I was eating lunch with a good friend this week. He is an attorney and is one of the few people I can talk politics with who doesn't get all emotional. Like me he is conservative, but not redneck conservative. Neither of us hates Barack Obama personally, but we do disagree with his politics in general. We share a pessimistic outlook about the future of our country. Our conversation got me to thinking about some things that I'd like to share.
I've heard it said many times (especially during the abortion debate) that "you can't legislate morality." I think that implies that my "faction" is not supposed to try to impose our moral code on everybody else by passing laws that force you to submit to our idea of right and wrong. Well, if you believe that morality can't be legislated, then I have news for you. Every single law ever written was an attempt to legislate someone's morality.
After all, what is morality? Mirriam-Webster online defines moral as : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical
Everyone has a moral code, from Neo-Nazis to New Black Panthers to Navajos. As individuals we tend to get our moral code from our families, and then it evolves as we experience life and grow into maturity. I come from a devoutly Roman Catholic family and my moral code was formed by my religious faith as well as the customs and traditions of where I was raised, namely West Texas. The Judeo-Christian moral code is based on two simple, but difficult to follow principles: 1. Love God with all your heart, your mind, your soul and your strength, and 2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. I honestly believe that if everyone in the world followed these two principles then we would have the Utopia every liberal dreams of. (Note: A moral code is what one believes, not necessarily what one does. When I follow my moral code then I am a moral person, and when I don't then I am immoral. What is moral for me, a Roman Catholic, isn't always moral for a Muslim or a member of the Aryan Brotherhood or the New Black Panthers.)
The body of laws that we live by, local, state and federal, is a reflection of the combined moral code of the majority of the people. It is clear that the United States was founded by men (Sorry ladies, women didn't have a significant role in the founding, I don't care what your Women's Studies professor told you. If they had, we probably would have been a much better nation for it.) whose morality was a reflection of their Judeo-Christian religious faith as well as the history and traditions of England. (I know, I know - some of the Founders were "Deists", but if you look into the Deus they believed in He was pretty much the Judeo-Christian God, just without all the trappings of denominational Christianity.) The body of laws they enacted, as well as the founding documents were a reflection of the prevailing morality of America at the end of the eighteenth century. Murder was a moral wrong (as it is still is today) and was therefore illegal. Slavery and indentured servitude (slavery for poor white people - look it up) were a little iffy but acceptable. Obviously as the nation matured our moral code evolved and, after a horrible civil war, the owning of one human being by another has become morally repugnant and our laws are a reflection of that repugnance.
So what's the big deal? Our country has grown and changed a lot in 233 years and our laws should reflect that changing morality. Why should I be so pessimistic? Well, as I see it there is right now a tremendous struggle in our nation between two moral codes, the old one I have just described based on the principles of Judeo-Christianity, and a newer one based on the principles of what I can only describe as Atheistic Utilitarianism. (My friend thinks a third code, based on Islam, is also involved, but it is relatively tiny and isolated to a few areas of the country. It is s much larger factor in Europe.) Utilitarianism is : a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number. I submit that the vast, vast majority of the people of this country are still guided (in general) by the first moral code, they just don't know it or understand it. The problem is that a large number of our governing elites are guided by the principles of the second.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written by men who believed that our basic human rights come from God and are therefore sacred and must be protected by the State. Far too many of our current crop of elites, however, seem to believe that there is no God and therefore our human rights come from the State and are determined to be whatever the State says they are. (Soviet Communism is the classic example of Atheistic Utilitarianism in full flower.) Who are these elites, you may ask? They are mostly found in government, in the cultural media (television, movies, books, non-news magazines, etc.), in the news media and in education. They are both Republicans and Democrats. A few are conservative, most are liberal. They have relatively few followers, but those followers are extremely dedicated, vocal and passionate. They are relentless. If you don't believe me then go to a conservative website like Town Hall or Big Hollywood and check out the comments section. There they are, day after day; the same people. Their comments are always mean and insulting, usually angry and rarely relevant to the point of the article. They can't possibly hope to win hearts and minds with the same tired crap they spew but they never stop. (I rarely read liberal websites or blogs and I especially avoid the comments [life is too short] so I don't know if they have the same phenomenon.) They are members of Code Pink, PETA, ALF, Greenpeace, NOW, NARAL and the ACLU (especially the ACLU) and dozens of other organizations. They are few in number but have a profound effect on the direction of our nation and its laws.
My point is this: I believe that the vast majority of the people of this country share a similar morality based on Judeo-Christian principles. Even many (if not most) who consider themselves agnostics or even atheists share these principles to a large degree. I also believe that our nation is increasingly being led by an elite that does not share that morality. I think there are several reasons why "We, The People" are allowing this to happen, and that will be the subject of my next installment.
I've heard it said many times (especially during the abortion debate) that "you can't legislate morality." I think that implies that my "faction" is not supposed to try to impose our moral code on everybody else by passing laws that force you to submit to our idea of right and wrong. Well, if you believe that morality can't be legislated, then I have news for you. Every single law ever written was an attempt to legislate someone's morality.
After all, what is morality? Mirriam-Webster online defines moral as : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical
Everyone has a moral code, from Neo-Nazis to New Black Panthers to Navajos. As individuals we tend to get our moral code from our families, and then it evolves as we experience life and grow into maturity. I come from a devoutly Roman Catholic family and my moral code was formed by my religious faith as well as the customs and traditions of where I was raised, namely West Texas. The Judeo-Christian moral code is based on two simple, but difficult to follow principles: 1. Love God with all your heart, your mind, your soul and your strength, and 2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. I honestly believe that if everyone in the world followed these two principles then we would have the Utopia every liberal dreams of. (Note: A moral code is what one believes, not necessarily what one does. When I follow my moral code then I am a moral person, and when I don't then I am immoral. What is moral for me, a Roman Catholic, isn't always moral for a Muslim or a member of the Aryan Brotherhood or the New Black Panthers.)
The body of laws that we live by, local, state and federal, is a reflection of the combined moral code of the majority of the people. It is clear that the United States was founded by men (Sorry ladies, women didn't have a significant role in the founding, I don't care what your Women's Studies professor told you. If they had, we probably would have been a much better nation for it.) whose morality was a reflection of their Judeo-Christian religious faith as well as the history and traditions of England. (I know, I know - some of the Founders were "Deists", but if you look into the Deus they believed in He was pretty much the Judeo-Christian God, just without all the trappings of denominational Christianity.) The body of laws they enacted, as well as the founding documents were a reflection of the prevailing morality of America at the end of the eighteenth century. Murder was a moral wrong (as it is still is today) and was therefore illegal. Slavery and indentured servitude (slavery for poor white people - look it up) were a little iffy but acceptable. Obviously as the nation matured our moral code evolved and, after a horrible civil war, the owning of one human being by another has become morally repugnant and our laws are a reflection of that repugnance.
So what's the big deal? Our country has grown and changed a lot in 233 years and our laws should reflect that changing morality. Why should I be so pessimistic? Well, as I see it there is right now a tremendous struggle in our nation between two moral codes, the old one I have just described based on the principles of Judeo-Christianity, and a newer one based on the principles of what I can only describe as Atheistic Utilitarianism. (My friend thinks a third code, based on Islam, is also involved, but it is relatively tiny and isolated to a few areas of the country. It is s much larger factor in Europe.) Utilitarianism is : a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number. I submit that the vast, vast majority of the people of this country are still guided (in general) by the first moral code, they just don't know it or understand it. The problem is that a large number of our governing elites are guided by the principles of the second.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written by men who believed that our basic human rights come from God and are therefore sacred and must be protected by the State. Far too many of our current crop of elites, however, seem to believe that there is no God and therefore our human rights come from the State and are determined to be whatever the State says they are. (Soviet Communism is the classic example of Atheistic Utilitarianism in full flower.) Who are these elites, you may ask? They are mostly found in government, in the cultural media (television, movies, books, non-news magazines, etc.), in the news media and in education. They are both Republicans and Democrats. A few are conservative, most are liberal. They have relatively few followers, but those followers are extremely dedicated, vocal and passionate. They are relentless. If you don't believe me then go to a conservative website like Town Hall or Big Hollywood and check out the comments section. There they are, day after day; the same people. Their comments are always mean and insulting, usually angry and rarely relevant to the point of the article. They can't possibly hope to win hearts and minds with the same tired crap they spew but they never stop. (I rarely read liberal websites or blogs and I especially avoid the comments [life is too short] so I don't know if they have the same phenomenon.) They are members of Code Pink, PETA, ALF, Greenpeace, NOW, NARAL and the ACLU (especially the ACLU) and dozens of other organizations. They are few in number but have a profound effect on the direction of our nation and its laws.
My point is this: I believe that the vast majority of the people of this country share a similar morality based on Judeo-Christian principles. Even many (if not most) who consider themselves agnostics or even atheists share these principles to a large degree. I also believe that our nation is increasingly being led by an elite that does not share that morality. I think there are several reasons why "We, The People" are allowing this to happen, and that will be the subject of my next installment.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
A Salute to Albert Gore
I read today that Al Gore testified on "Global Warming" before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I didn't bother to read what he said because life is just too darn short. I have to give it to him though. Al is probably the greatest con artist of modern times. First he scares the crap out of everybody with his silly movie - a combination of propaganda and pseudo-science - all the while raking in the box office dough. Then he travels around the world spreading more fear and helplessness - and collecting generous speaking fees, of course. Meanwhile he starts a company that sells something called "Carbon Offsets" so that the guilty can buy (at bargain prices, I'm sure) to cancel out their "Carbon Footprint". [Sort of like the Church selling indulgences to frightened sinners during the Middle Ages.] When he's not zipping off to exotic locales in private jets and stretch limos he stays in one of his several houses, including the family mansion which uses something like eighteen to twenty times the electricity of the average American household. While he's there he can count the profits he's raking in from his shares of Occidental Petroleum. One wonders how much the price of oil has been affected by his crusade to "Saved the Planet". It's no wonder he didn't want to run for President again - he didn't want to take the pay cut - and who needs the grief anyway. Bernie Madoff is under house arrest for stealing billions in a failed Ponzi scheme and Governor Blagojevich is facing impeachment for selling a seat in the Senate. Al gets a Nobel Prize, an Academy Award and the adulation of millions of gullible idiots. Is this a great country or what?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Just Another Hater
I was once an avid reader of newspapers. I like the feel of the paper and the wide variety of stories, from state and local news to sports and even Dear Abby. My very favorite part (besides the funnies, of course) has always been the editorial/opinions section. I've made it clear in a previous post that I enjoyed reading the "Letters to the Editor", but I also liked the columnists. I tried to read both conservative and liberal columnists so that I could at least try to understand both sides of the controversial issues of the day. One of my favorites was a fellow named Leonard Pitts, who wrote for the Miami Herald the last time I checked. Mr. Pitts is Black and a flaming liberal and I rarely agreed with anything he said, but he wrote with such beauty, power and passion that he was a joy to read anyway. Over the last few years, however, Mr. Pitts slowly succumbed to hatred. Like so many in his profession he drank the Kool-Aid, drank it to the last drop and gradually became just another hater. No more intelligence, no more reason - just column after dreary column repeating the same old crap that every other wild eyed liberal hater was spewing. His growing hatred affected his style as well as his substance and I finally quit reading his column because it just wasn't worth it. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. I learned a long time ago that you can't reason with a hater. You'll never change their mind and you'll wind up angry, tired and sad. Hate isn't rational and in the end it generally harms the hater far more than the hated.
I hope now that we have a new president Mr. Pitts will be able to recover some of his former abilities. Like so many others I get my news from the internet now. Newspapers are dying, many deservedly so. Someday I may Google Mr. Pitts and check out his writings to see if he is able to recapture his style, but not anytime soon. There is too much hate in the world already. I don't need any more from him.
I hope now that we have a new president Mr. Pitts will be able to recover some of his former abilities. Like so many others I get my news from the internet now. Newspapers are dying, many deservedly so. Someday I may Google Mr. Pitts and check out his writings to see if he is able to recapture his style, but not anytime soon. There is too much hate in the world already. I don't need any more from him.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
I'm Back
I'm not really sure why I stopped. I've had a lot to say, but with the election and all there was already too much political B.S.on the internet and I guess I didn't want to add any more. After all, what do I know? I'm a middle aged white guy living in a small town in the middle of Texas. I haven't traveled the world (I have been to Canada, Mexico and Colombia) or participated in anything historically significant. I took the same history and political science courses in high school and college everyone else took (I did make A's, though). The only elected office I've held in recent memory is president of the local Rotary Club. As passionately as I care about the politics of my country, I guess I felt as though I didn't have anything worth saying that others weren't already saying much better than I ever could. In the end it all made me so very tired of the whole mess. I just wanted it to be over with and didn't feel like writing much of anything and so I didn't.
I can't say I'm pleased with the man we elected as president (to be honest, I can't yet say I'm upset with him either). To be honest I wasn't all that excited about John McCain. There are some reasonable conclusions one can draw, however, from the last few months.
The first is that the old saw that anybody can grow up to be president is true. Any student of American politics who knew Mr. Obama's life story would have to be amazed at the utter unlikelihood of his election. He is of mixed race, and his black father was African, not African-American so there was no guarantee that Black America would accept him as one of their own. Despite notable clashes with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson he was able to win them over completely. He had to overcome the ferocious Hillary Clinton and her massive machine to win the nomination. To this day I don't know how he did it. Perhaps the Clintons' hold on the Democrats isn't as powerful as everyone thought. Here is a man with nothing going for him but his race, his looks and his speaking ability. His political achievements and executive experience are non-existent. He isn't a war hero or a well known actor. He has no business experience and (I may be wrong) I don't think he's ever had a paying job outside of politics. Yet against all odds he was able to pull it off. I didn't vote for him and remain dubious about his abilities but I can certainly understand the pride and joy in the African American Community. [I think the first thing Mr. Obama should do during his inaugural address is apologize to John McCain and the RNC for suggesting that they would try to use his race against him. It was a despicable, divisive thing to do and he owes the Republicans and the nation a sincere apology.]
The second conclusion one can draw is that the national news media is overwhelmingly biased when it comes to politics. It is a known fact that something like 80% of journalists in newsrooms across the U.S. vote Democrat. How can anyone who watched the deranged, hysterical coverage of Governor Palin after her nomination not admit otherwise? Really? She faked pregnancy while serving as a governor? Can anyone seriously suggest that had she been a Democrat and Mr. Obama had chosen her for a running mate that things would have gone much differently? She would have been portrayed as a political goddess and the most difficult question Charles Gibson or Katie Couric would have asked would have been something like, "how did it feel when you found out your teenage daughter was pregnant?" or "how do you manage to make time for your family?" Hell, she'd be more popular than Oprah. [If you think about it, she and Mr. Obama have a lot in common. She is a woman (also an "oppressed minority"), good looking and well spoken. Other than being a Republican the only significant difference was that she had some (albeit not much) executive experience.] Now it has become impossible to trust the likes of CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News and CNN when it comes to political news. Venerable organizations like Reuters, AP, The New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe etc, etc... have lost my trust and the trust of many more like me. They don't much seem to care and their response has been to either deny the obvious truth or pretend that it doesn't matter. Many of these institutions are failing and I guess they'll be replaced by internet news outlets. We'll have to wait and see if this is a good thing or not. Probably not.
The last conclusion is probably the most significant. It is painfully clear that our educational system has failed. Way too many people in this country are woefully ignorant about our history, our economic system and the way our government works. Even worse - they don't want to know. This does not bode well for the future. Especially when you consider that so many people have come to see themselves as dependent on the government for their well being. I believe that it is a disaster in the making and we have no one but ourselves to blame.
I wish Mr. Obama well and I will pray for him as I prayed for President Bush. He seems like a happily married man who loves his kids, and a guy like that can't be all bad. For better and for worse he is our President now (at least he will be after the 20th) and his success will be our nation's success. He will certainly begin his term with more good will than did his predecessor, and he has an almost worshipful news media to boot. I suspect most of his problems will come from his own party, at least at first. A significant percentage of his most ardent followers are utterly convinced that the first thing he's going to do after the inauguration is arrest Mr. Bush for war crimes and bring home the troops. They are going to be sorely disappointed when he does neither. Considering the degree of hatred they exhibited toward President Bush they may be even worse when they realize their hopes have been betrayed. Everybody knows what happens to messiahs.
I can't say I'm pleased with the man we elected as president (to be honest, I can't yet say I'm upset with him either). To be honest I wasn't all that excited about John McCain. There are some reasonable conclusions one can draw, however, from the last few months.
The first is that the old saw that anybody can grow up to be president is true. Any student of American politics who knew Mr. Obama's life story would have to be amazed at the utter unlikelihood of his election. He is of mixed race, and his black father was African, not African-American so there was no guarantee that Black America would accept him as one of their own. Despite notable clashes with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson he was able to win them over completely. He had to overcome the ferocious Hillary Clinton and her massive machine to win the nomination. To this day I don't know how he did it. Perhaps the Clintons' hold on the Democrats isn't as powerful as everyone thought. Here is a man with nothing going for him but his race, his looks and his speaking ability. His political achievements and executive experience are non-existent. He isn't a war hero or a well known actor. He has no business experience and (I may be wrong) I don't think he's ever had a paying job outside of politics. Yet against all odds he was able to pull it off. I didn't vote for him and remain dubious about his abilities but I can certainly understand the pride and joy in the African American Community. [I think the first thing Mr. Obama should do during his inaugural address is apologize to John McCain and the RNC for suggesting that they would try to use his race against him. It was a despicable, divisive thing to do and he owes the Republicans and the nation a sincere apology.]
The second conclusion one can draw is that the national news media is overwhelmingly biased when it comes to politics. It is a known fact that something like 80% of journalists in newsrooms across the U.S. vote Democrat. How can anyone who watched the deranged, hysterical coverage of Governor Palin after her nomination not admit otherwise? Really? She faked pregnancy while serving as a governor? Can anyone seriously suggest that had she been a Democrat and Mr. Obama had chosen her for a running mate that things would have gone much differently? She would have been portrayed as a political goddess and the most difficult question Charles Gibson or Katie Couric would have asked would have been something like, "how did it feel when you found out your teenage daughter was pregnant?" or "how do you manage to make time for your family?" Hell, she'd be more popular than Oprah. [If you think about it, she and Mr. Obama have a lot in common. She is a woman (also an "oppressed minority"), good looking and well spoken. Other than being a Republican the only significant difference was that she had some (albeit not much) executive experience.] Now it has become impossible to trust the likes of CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News and CNN when it comes to political news. Venerable organizations like Reuters, AP, The New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe etc, etc... have lost my trust and the trust of many more like me. They don't much seem to care and their response has been to either deny the obvious truth or pretend that it doesn't matter. Many of these institutions are failing and I guess they'll be replaced by internet news outlets. We'll have to wait and see if this is a good thing or not. Probably not.
The last conclusion is probably the most significant. It is painfully clear that our educational system has failed. Way too many people in this country are woefully ignorant about our history, our economic system and the way our government works. Even worse - they don't want to know. This does not bode well for the future. Especially when you consider that so many people have come to see themselves as dependent on the government for their well being. I believe that it is a disaster in the making and we have no one but ourselves to blame.
I wish Mr. Obama well and I will pray for him as I prayed for President Bush. He seems like a happily married man who loves his kids, and a guy like that can't be all bad. For better and for worse he is our President now (at least he will be after the 20th) and his success will be our nation's success. He will certainly begin his term with more good will than did his predecessor, and he has an almost worshipful news media to boot. I suspect most of his problems will come from his own party, at least at first. A significant percentage of his most ardent followers are utterly convinced that the first thing he's going to do after the inauguration is arrest Mr. Bush for war crimes and bring home the troops. They are going to be sorely disappointed when he does neither. Considering the degree of hatred they exhibited toward President Bush they may be even worse when they realize their hopes have been betrayed. Everybody knows what happens to messiahs.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Oh, To Be Like Socrates
I really don't want to have a political blog. I don't hate many things in this world, but I genuinely HATE most of the political discussions I read on the Internet. It seems that anyone who offers an opinion, no matter how well reasoned, on either side of any issue is immediately buried by an avalanche of obscenity filled attacks on their intelligence, character and integrity. Even more irritating is the tendency to call someone a "Nazi" or a "fascist" and voila, whatever they say is no longer valid or important enough to be heard. I doubt that most of the people who use those terms so freely even know what they really mean.
There was a time, not long ago, when I subscribed to a fairly decent newspaper - The Dallas Morning News. One of my favorite sections was the Opinion Page and the Letters to the Editor. I enjoyed the give and take on the issues of the day. Even though I am politically conservative I learned to respect (but not agree with) the opinions of some leftward leaning columnists like Richard Cohen, Ellen Goodman and Leonard Pitts. Letters to the Editor were vetted by the editorial board and the really nasty ones weren't usually printed. Also, the letter writer had to include their real name and address. I know this because I wrote a couple of letters over the years and the paper sent me postcards asking me to verify that I had indeed written them.
The Dallas Morning News no longer delivers to my little town so I'm reduced to getting most my news here on the Internet (I refuse to watch TV news. It sucks in so many ways - but that's another post). It seems that every other website has a "comments" section which I suppose is to encourage feedback. Even You-Tube has a comments section, though I can't for the life of me understand why. I finally stopped reading most comments because they are a ridiculous waste of time. Besides being barely literate, most of them are downright foul. It's hard to believe how much enjoyment people seem to get from insulting one another. I'm not afraid of controversy but so called "flame wars" are just a depressing waste of time.
After reading (and commenting) on Martha's blog I'm happy to say that I am pretty impressed by the civility of the discussions. Her readers respect each other enough to refrain from personal attacks even when they strongly disagree with each other. There was a fairly passionate debate with Candy Minx over socialized health care and nary a harsh word or epithet was hurled. When it was over I felt like we were all a little smarter and we certainly had a lot to think about. That's not a bad result.
Whenever I read the harsh invective that passes for political discussion on the web I have to wonder what people are thinking. Have you ever persuaded anyone by pissing them off? I know I haven't, and I've certainly done my share of pissing people off (right Martha?). Instead of winning them over to my point of view it usually results in the other person tuning me out and never listening to me ever again. And even worse, insulting someone because of their opinion (no matter how misguided that opinion may be) is like reading Shakespeare to a pig. It's a complete waste of time and it annoys the pig (I think Mark Twain said this).
Some of the things I've learned (the hard way, of course) over the years: 1) Don't argue with an angry person. You will only make them angrier. 2) Don't argue with a stupid person. It will only drag you down to their level. I've found that when a stupid person tries to stir up controversy it's best to just smile and nod, then change the subject. 3) If you lose your temper, you've probably lost the argument too. 4) You don't win debates by shouting down your opponent. 5) Never ask someone to share their opinion and then attack them for it. This is extremely bad form. 6) If you have to resort to angry personal attacks to make your point then you are probably wrong to begin with. 7) If you question another person's deeply held beliefs, especially their religious (or anti-religious) beliefs, do so with great care and respect, otherwise you will probably lose a friend and you may create an enemy.
If you think about it, isn't the ultimate goal in a debate to win other's to your point of view? What is really the best way to do that? How did you arrive at your own opinions? I think old Socrates had the right idea. He just kept asking questions and let the other person come to his own conclusions. I sincerely wish I had the patience and wisdom to emulate him.
There was a time, not long ago, when I subscribed to a fairly decent newspaper - The Dallas Morning News. One of my favorite sections was the Opinion Page and the Letters to the Editor. I enjoyed the give and take on the issues of the day. Even though I am politically conservative I learned to respect (but not agree with) the opinions of some leftward leaning columnists like Richard Cohen, Ellen Goodman and Leonard Pitts. Letters to the Editor were vetted by the editorial board and the really nasty ones weren't usually printed. Also, the letter writer had to include their real name and address. I know this because I wrote a couple of letters over the years and the paper sent me postcards asking me to verify that I had indeed written them.
The Dallas Morning News no longer delivers to my little town so I'm reduced to getting most my news here on the Internet (I refuse to watch TV news. It sucks in so many ways - but that's another post). It seems that every other website has a "comments" section which I suppose is to encourage feedback. Even You-Tube has a comments section, though I can't for the life of me understand why. I finally stopped reading most comments because they are a ridiculous waste of time. Besides being barely literate, most of them are downright foul. It's hard to believe how much enjoyment people seem to get from insulting one another. I'm not afraid of controversy but so called "flame wars" are just a depressing waste of time.
After reading (and commenting) on Martha's blog I'm happy to say that I am pretty impressed by the civility of the discussions. Her readers respect each other enough to refrain from personal attacks even when they strongly disagree with each other. There was a fairly passionate debate with Candy Minx over socialized health care and nary a harsh word or epithet was hurled. When it was over I felt like we were all a little smarter and we certainly had a lot to think about. That's not a bad result.
Whenever I read the harsh invective that passes for political discussion on the web I have to wonder what people are thinking. Have you ever persuaded anyone by pissing them off? I know I haven't, and I've certainly done my share of pissing people off (right Martha?). Instead of winning them over to my point of view it usually results in the other person tuning me out and never listening to me ever again. And even worse, insulting someone because of their opinion (no matter how misguided that opinion may be) is like reading Shakespeare to a pig. It's a complete waste of time and it annoys the pig (I think Mark Twain said this).
Some of the things I've learned (the hard way, of course) over the years: 1) Don't argue with an angry person. You will only make them angrier. 2) Don't argue with a stupid person. It will only drag you down to their level. I've found that when a stupid person tries to stir up controversy it's best to just smile and nod, then change the subject. 3) If you lose your temper, you've probably lost the argument too. 4) You don't win debates by shouting down your opponent. 5) Never ask someone to share their opinion and then attack them for it. This is extremely bad form. 6) If you have to resort to angry personal attacks to make your point then you are probably wrong to begin with. 7) If you question another person's deeply held beliefs, especially their religious (or anti-religious) beliefs, do so with great care and respect, otherwise you will probably lose a friend and you may create an enemy.
If you think about it, isn't the ultimate goal in a debate to win other's to your point of view? What is really the best way to do that? How did you arrive at your own opinions? I think old Socrates had the right idea. He just kept asking questions and let the other person come to his own conclusions. I sincerely wish I had the patience and wisdom to emulate him.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Things Are Not So Bad As They Seem
I just read an article on Yahoo about how terrible everything is and how so many people feel helpless and discouraged. It was so stupid it almost made me laugh. To anyone who regularly reads the news the mere presence of that article is an indication of a slow news day. The article says that only seventeen percent of Americans think the country is moving in "the right direction", whatever that means. If you think about it, it's a pretty silly question to begin with. If you put a hundred Americans together in one room, ninety-seven of them wouldn't have a clue where the country has been, much less where it is going. They don't know and they don't want to know. They know all about Britney and Paris' latest escapades but they couldn't name the Vice President or Secretary of State if their lives depended on it. The other three know where we've been, but they violently disagree about which way we should go.
We live in a culture that is saturated by news every hour of every day. Since most journalistic enterprises live by the creed "If it Bleeds it Leads" most of the news we see and hear is bad. You hear all about the droughts and floods, but pleasant weather never makes the headlines. The so-called war in Iraq hasn't been a war for years. The actual war was over in a matter of weeks. It's been an occupation ever since and seems to be going pretty well in the last few months but you'd never know it by watching the news. You would think that most people (even if they opposed the invasion) would want things to go well there. God knows the Iraqis have suffered terribly under the dictatorship of Saddam and since the invasion began. You would think most people would wish them peace, prosperity and the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. There appear to be many in the journalistic community that equate peace, prosperity and freedom for the Iraqis as a victory for George Bush and that is simply unthinkable. So they keep stirring the pot.
High gas prices are probably the leading cause of doom and gloom lately. Americans are woefully ignorant of how the oil and gas business works and, as usual, we are poorly served by our news media. If a situation really bothers me or makes me mad I try to learn as much about it as possible so I can support the politicians and policies that are most likely to change it. I'm afraid that most Americans would rather just find someone to blame. The oil companies might not be at fault (Learn all you can and then judge for yourselves) but they make easy scapegoats - sort of like the Jews during the Black Plague. I don't pretend to be an expert on economics but common sense tells me that the law of supply and demand is probably more to blame than anything else. If we want the price to come down we either need to make more or use less (or a combination of the two). Perhaps we should allow the oil companies to drill offshore and in ANWR. Maybe we should all ride bicycles or drive electric cars. One thing I know for sure and that is if politicians get involved it will only get worse.
In the meantime, the sun still rises every morning. I watched several professional sporting events on television this weekend - soccer, baseball and arena football - and all the stadiums were full in spite of the terrible economy. I checked the latest unemployment stats - hovering around 5% - and they are better than just about anywhere else in the world. Last week I read that Americans' life expectancy had gone up yet again, in spite of all those dreaded chemicals and genetically modified foods and awful diseases floating around out there. My office looks out on a four-lane highway and as far as I can tell there is as much traffic as ever, in spite of the high gas prices. I went to the grocery store in San Angelo yesterday and it was full of customers with carts overflowing, in spite of high food prices. I know a lot of people, but I don't know anyone who lost their home to forclosure, in spite of the sub-prime lending fiasco. Those folks in Iowa who've suffered through the flooding will come back stronger than ever, because that is their nature. You don't hear them whining about FEMA or Bush or crying for help. They are used to adversity, hard work and taking care of their own.
The bottom line is this: There are over six billion people on this planet insuring a constant abundance of bad news. There will always be disasters both man-made and otherwise. Bad news is what sells. Sometimes it's best to trash the newspaper, turn off the tv, shut down the computer and just go fishing.
We live in a culture that is saturated by news every hour of every day. Since most journalistic enterprises live by the creed "If it Bleeds it Leads" most of the news we see and hear is bad. You hear all about the droughts and floods, but pleasant weather never makes the headlines. The so-called war in Iraq hasn't been a war for years. The actual war was over in a matter of weeks. It's been an occupation ever since and seems to be going pretty well in the last few months but you'd never know it by watching the news. You would think that most people (even if they opposed the invasion) would want things to go well there. God knows the Iraqis have suffered terribly under the dictatorship of Saddam and since the invasion began. You would think most people would wish them peace, prosperity and the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. There appear to be many in the journalistic community that equate peace, prosperity and freedom for the Iraqis as a victory for George Bush and that is simply unthinkable. So they keep stirring the pot.
High gas prices are probably the leading cause of doom and gloom lately. Americans are woefully ignorant of how the oil and gas business works and, as usual, we are poorly served by our news media. If a situation really bothers me or makes me mad I try to learn as much about it as possible so I can support the politicians and policies that are most likely to change it. I'm afraid that most Americans would rather just find someone to blame. The oil companies might not be at fault (Learn all you can and then judge for yourselves) but they make easy scapegoats - sort of like the Jews during the Black Plague. I don't pretend to be an expert on economics but common sense tells me that the law of supply and demand is probably more to blame than anything else. If we want the price to come down we either need to make more or use less (or a combination of the two). Perhaps we should allow the oil companies to drill offshore and in ANWR. Maybe we should all ride bicycles or drive electric cars. One thing I know for sure and that is if politicians get involved it will only get worse.
In the meantime, the sun still rises every morning. I watched several professional sporting events on television this weekend - soccer, baseball and arena football - and all the stadiums were full in spite of the terrible economy. I checked the latest unemployment stats - hovering around 5% - and they are better than just about anywhere else in the world. Last week I read that Americans' life expectancy had gone up yet again, in spite of all those dreaded chemicals and genetically modified foods and awful diseases floating around out there. My office looks out on a four-lane highway and as far as I can tell there is as much traffic as ever, in spite of the high gas prices. I went to the grocery store in San Angelo yesterday and it was full of customers with carts overflowing, in spite of high food prices. I know a lot of people, but I don't know anyone who lost their home to forclosure, in spite of the sub-prime lending fiasco. Those folks in Iowa who've suffered through the flooding will come back stronger than ever, because that is their nature. You don't hear them whining about FEMA or Bush or crying for help. They are used to adversity, hard work and taking care of their own.
The bottom line is this: There are over six billion people on this planet insuring a constant abundance of bad news. There will always be disasters both man-made and otherwise. Bad news is what sells. Sometimes it's best to trash the newspaper, turn off the tv, shut down the computer and just go fishing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
