The holy war is over. God lost as the secularist Patriots won.
Who cares about Tim Tebow and God? One heck of a lot of people in this country do. It should not have become all that important. In our ongoing class struggle, however, how one thinks on an issue marks one's position in society.
First, a wee primer on class warfare in modern, or, postmodern America if you will. In prior centuries, class was marked on you at birth. King at the top, then nobles and after that commoners. Commoners were either bourgeoisie or peasants at the bottom. Guess what, your ancestors were peasants. Yeah, maybe you can get a slight connection to Lord So and So on Ancestry.com, but the pre-modern world was often on the edge of famine. Producing food occupied the time of most of the world's population. Nobody really cared what the peasants thought.
Today, in a "First World" with a stable food supply, class is not assigned at birth. That does not mean we don't have markers. Some are blatant such as income and occupation. An internist is considered higher on the scale than a plumber, even if the plumber might make a little more.
Some are more subtle. In this sense, class can be considered cooties for adults. The question becomes who is cool and who is not. What is cool is a detached, above it all persona, except when it's not. If someone does not play the game, it's inquisition time. This explains why people got bent out of shape over Sarah Palin. The lass never said anything profound. What politician does? Just being flyover girl was a problem.
Actually, she had a greater sin than that. It is one that Tim shares. He doesn't care what the cool people think. This bugs the chattering classes. Consider the words of über-cool guy, Bill Press:
Jesus said a lot of strong things. But one of the strongest things he ever said was: When you pray, don't be like those hypocrites who like to stand on a street corner and pray, so everybody can see them.
Somebody ought to tell that to Tim Tebow.
Broncos quarterback Tebow's not only a Christian. He wants everybody to know he's a Christian. He brags about it, constantly. He wears Bible verses on his face. He kneels in prayer after every touchdown. And he thanks his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for every win.
There's only one thing wrong with that. By dragging God into every football game, Tebow makes a mockery of Christianity - and trivializes religion. The truth is, God doesn't care who wins an election, a bingo game, or a football game. Sorry, Tebow, Jesus is not a Broncos fan.
That first paragraph is true. Press is correct. Time and place is everything. Of course, when the déclassé stand up and display their faith, it can be a powerful thing. When all the Polish Solidarity members publicly went to confession in the Gdansk shipyard, the atheist regime got antsy. Press is really saying, "Stay in the closet, don't be uncool." Bill is a Catholic layman. He forgets how, at least a few decades ago, all us Papist little leaguers would cross ourselves coming up to bat.
Tebow himself has made it clear that God does not care about football. Is he sincere? Maybe Bill Press has a window into his soul. You can be sure Press was a New England fan yesterday.
Press also said, Now, if you're one of the silly millions of Americans who loves Tebow's in-your-face kind of Christianity, consider this. What if he were a devout Muslim, who bowed to Mecca after every touchdown and shouted "Allahu Akbar?"
Somehow, I don't think we'd be celebrating him as a national hero.
That's my parting shot for today.
One would not be surprised if when that happened, Bill would find a Moslem standing for his faith refreshing.
Moi, I hope God, no matter how he is perceived, does not care. Football is boring. That's why they need cheerleaders.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Friday, July 23, 2010
What a Journolist meeting would look like if they actually got together
They are workers at a virtual Ministry of Truth.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Martin Luther King Jr. Day Survey
Actually, it was the survey last week. I asked people do you get Monday off? They mostly said yes. I then asked why? I would say about 80% knew it was MLKJr. Day. Then I would ask, who was Martin Luther. Though some would say the Lutheran founder, most would say something along the lines of the civil rights leader. I would then tell them I was asking about Martin Luther King, Jr., but Martin Luther. A few had not at first been paying attention and corrected themselves.
The great majority had no idea. Now these were not janitorial staff. They were anything from an IT guy to finance pros to grant writers. Many were the type Mr. Lander writes about at SWPL.
Several years ago, my sister was at a function for staff at the bank she works at. All attending were above her and high up on the chain of command. They did a trivia game. Everyone knew the popular culture questions. Then they asked questions like what happened in 1066. When my baby sister said the Battle of Hastings, one of the mucky mucks said disdainfully, "I bet you're good at trivial pursuit." Herself was smart enough to hold her peace, but I know she does not think such ignorance is good for the body politic among people who have so much money.
So for all of you who think we don't let children vote, here are again the words of the old Marcus Tullius,
“To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a child. For what is man's lifetime unless the memory of past events is woven with those of earlier times?”
For the record, the person who knew the most about Martin Luther was a mixed race fellow.
The great majority had no idea. Now these were not janitorial staff. They were anything from an IT guy to finance pros to grant writers. Many were the type Mr. Lander writes about at SWPL.
Several years ago, my sister was at a function for staff at the bank she works at. All attending were above her and high up on the chain of command. They did a trivia game. Everyone knew the popular culture questions. Then they asked questions like what happened in 1066. When my baby sister said the Battle of Hastings, one of the mucky mucks said disdainfully, "I bet you're good at trivial pursuit." Herself was smart enough to hold her peace, but I know she does not think such ignorance is good for the body politic among people who have so much money.
So for all of you who think we don't let children vote, here are again the words of the old Marcus Tullius,
“To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a child. For what is man's lifetime unless the memory of past events is woven with those of earlier times?”
For the record, the person who knew the most about Martin Luther was a mixed race fellow.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Holding My Nose
Jim Hightower and I are not ideologically in tune. I do like the title of one of his books, If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote, They'd Have Given Us Candidates. Here in the Peoples Republic, folks are getting excited about Scott Brown. There is really not much there. He is a chickenhawk who touts his service in the JAG arm of the National Guard. Do they give Purple Hearts for an injury suffered in a food fight at the officer's club? When he is elected, it will be status quo ante with more young men sent to die for our eventual withdrawl. Of course that is true of his opponent.
Brown also supported Romneycare. That debacle is going to cost a lot here in Massachusetts. Still, he will probably be the deciding vote to kill the healthcare bill.
But, in the long run, he won't be all that different. I don't think it matters as we are going to collapse a la the Soviet Union and for some of the same reasons (Afghan war, bloated bureacracy, debt) no matter who is Senator.
No, I shall vote against Coakley because she is, even by Massachusetts* standards, beyond vile. Nothing illustrates this more than the Fells Acre Daycare witch hunt. The case had collapsed and no one believed a shred of it. Martha did not have a big part of that case, but when Gerald Amirault should have been freed, she lobbied Acting Governor Jane Swift to keep an innocent and tragically brave man** in the slammer. There is also the Souza case of state torture of the elderly in the name of protecting the children. Would Martha admit that was wrong? I apologize for that last sentence. It was superfluous.
Though Martha is unworthy of being dogcatcher, if only because the dogs she would catch are, at least morally, her betters, that is not why she may lose. Martha hoped she would not have to say anything in this campaign and just get by because she is the Democrat and that would be enough. Unfortunately for her, her party has taken over the bad economy formerly owned by George Bush. Enough people even here in this political Disneyworld have doubts about Obamacare. Brown, with his macho frat boy looks and personal energy is wowing them. He handles himself well. The silly David Gergen asked him, Are you willing to derail reform for fifteen more years (logic alert! but let it pass) — are you willing to say “I’m going to sit in Ted Kennedy’s seat and I’m going to be the person who is going to block [health reform] for another fifteen years?
Downtown Brown didn't miss a beat, With all due respect,it’s not the Kennedy seat, it’s not the Democrat’s seat, it’s the people’s seat, and they have a chance to send somebody down who is going to be an independent voter and an independent thinker.
The idea that Coakley could have answered as well never entered anyone's mind.
So maybe your man will be elected. My celebration of La Coaks defeat will be treasured. Usually, after a Dem vs. Rep race my reaction is the bad news is so and so won. The good news is so and so lost. On Wednesday morn, if all goes right, my reaction will be, The bad news is Brown won. The great news is Coakley lost.***
*Our last several house speakers are either felons or indicted. Nobody bets the incumbent is pure as the driven snow.
**If Amirault had acquiesced in admitting his guilt, he would he would have been freed much earlier. He is the greatest gentleman in this state.
***The Libertarian appears a decent chap, but nothing special. Still, I feel guilty not giving him a chance.
Brown also supported Romneycare. That debacle is going to cost a lot here in Massachusetts. Still, he will probably be the deciding vote to kill the healthcare bill.
But, in the long run, he won't be all that different. I don't think it matters as we are going to collapse a la the Soviet Union and for some of the same reasons (Afghan war, bloated bureacracy, debt) no matter who is Senator.
No, I shall vote against Coakley because she is, even by Massachusetts* standards, beyond vile. Nothing illustrates this more than the Fells Acre Daycare witch hunt. The case had collapsed and no one believed a shred of it. Martha did not have a big part of that case, but when Gerald Amirault should have been freed, she lobbied Acting Governor Jane Swift to keep an innocent and tragically brave man** in the slammer. There is also the Souza case of state torture of the elderly in the name of protecting the children. Would Martha admit that was wrong? I apologize for that last sentence. It was superfluous.
Though Martha is unworthy of being dogcatcher, if only because the dogs she would catch are, at least morally, her betters, that is not why she may lose. Martha hoped she would not have to say anything in this campaign and just get by because she is the Democrat and that would be enough. Unfortunately for her, her party has taken over the bad economy formerly owned by George Bush. Enough people even here in this political Disneyworld have doubts about Obamacare. Brown, with his macho frat boy looks and personal energy is wowing them. He handles himself well. The silly David Gergen asked him, Are you willing to derail reform for fifteen more years (logic alert! but let it pass) — are you willing to say “I’m going to sit in Ted Kennedy’s seat and I’m going to be the person who is going to block [health reform] for another fifteen years?
Downtown Brown didn't miss a beat, With all due respect,it’s not the Kennedy seat, it’s not the Democrat’s seat, it’s the people’s seat, and they have a chance to send somebody down who is going to be an independent voter and an independent thinker.
The idea that Coakley could have answered as well never entered anyone's mind.
So maybe your man will be elected. My celebration of La Coaks defeat will be treasured. Usually, after a Dem vs. Rep race my reaction is the bad news is so and so won. The good news is so and so lost. On Wednesday morn, if all goes right, my reaction will be, The bad news is Brown won. The great news is Coakley lost.***
*Our last several house speakers are either felons or indicted. Nobody bets the incumbent is pure as the driven snow.
**If Amirault had acquiesced in admitting his guilt, he would he would have been freed much earlier. He is the greatest gentleman in this state.
***The Libertarian appears a decent chap, but nothing special. Still, I feel guilty not giving him a chance.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Happy New Year
he voice of humility wishes everyone a happy and politically incorrect 2010 Anno Domini.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Case closed, Economists say close your eyes and ears and don't audit the fed.
In an article titled Academics Spar With Populists Over Fed Audits at Jon Hilsenrath at a Wall Street Journal blog a whole slew of economists are saying don't audit the fed. Well, that, according to the author is not it, rather they are , dialing up its call for lawmakers to drop plans to subject the Federal Reserve to more scrutiny by the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress. Your man does not use the A word.
The pedants say, to let the GAO review Fed monetary policy would do “serious harm to the economy.” They warn increased congressional oversight would harm the Fed’s independence and ability to fight inflation.
Far be it for me to gainsay their wisdom as our golden age of fed watchdoggedness continues. Most impressive on the list of geniuses are nobel prizewinners.
One of them, Myron Scholes, is mentioned prominently. This is the savant who was a founder of that great success story, Long Term Capital Management.
Case closed. We must heed the warnings of the priesthood, I mean profession.
The pedants say, to let the GAO review Fed monetary policy would do “serious harm to the economy.” They warn increased congressional oversight would harm the Fed’s independence and ability to fight inflation.
Far be it for me to gainsay their wisdom as our golden age of fed watchdoggedness continues. Most impressive on the list of geniuses are nobel prizewinners.
One of them, Myron Scholes, is mentioned prominently. This is the savant who was a founder of that great success story, Long Term Capital Management.
Case closed. We must heed the warnings of the priesthood, I mean profession.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Reductio ad absurdam
"He should beg my forgiveness."
What Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wants from the Cambridge Cop who arrested him.
Non-obsequiousness is the new lynching.
What Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wants from the Cambridge Cop who arrested him.
Non-obsequiousness is the new lynching.
Friday, July 17, 2009
History's shrewdest move
"We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt"
The latest comment from Joe Biden.
Even people who think little of President Obama must be praying for his health and safety.
The latest comment from Joe Biden.
Even people who think little of President Obama must be praying for his health and safety.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Gunther lays an egg
Dennis Mangan has a post about white folks and having an interest in classical music,
My brother the classical music critic posts his take on Stuff White People Like #108: Appearing to enjoy Classical Music. It jibes with my experience; you've got to hang with some really pretentious people before you see anyone even attempt appearing to enjoy classical music. In the circles in which I move,you're doing well if you know what an orchestra is. Quoth Tim:
Admitting that you like classical music these days is to confirm to others that you are either a) a nerd, b) gay, or c) hopelessly beyond help. If you ever want to stop a conversation, just mention Stravinsky.
One of his commenters, Dave in Hackensack wrote,
A few years ago, my girlfriend won a free trip for two to Boston to see the symphony there. We got the VIP treatment because my girlfriend's employer at the time was a major corporate sponsor. The first piece the symphony presented that night was something old and enjoyable, which was followed by a cacophonous piece of noise -- an excerpt from some forgotten opera written in the second half of the 20th Century.
At intermission, in the bar area for the big donors, I asked the symphony employee who had been chaperoning us about that horrible piece. She sort of acknowledged that it was rough on the ears, but said that the symphony had to get its patrons used to that sort of thing so it could become part of the cannon. That sort of attitude can't be making classical music any more popular.
This afternoon, I turned on the BSO from Symphony Hall on WGBH and Dave's experience was replicated. Two Mozart Arias began the program. Then a work the BSO commissioned by Gunther Schuller titled Where the World Ends was premiered. It did not come close to mediocrity. I don't know how the training program DinH mentioned is going, but the applause was tepid.
Hey, I hardly rise to the level of dilettante. Still, with confidence I claim to have better taste than James Levine. After all, he took up his post proclaiming devotion to the works of Arnold Schoenberg.
Supposedly, a lot of Bostonians have lost gobs of money in the current downturn. In the foreseeable future I doubt torturing the subscribers will be a good business plan.
My brother the classical music critic posts his take on Stuff White People Like #108: Appearing to enjoy Classical Music. It jibes with my experience; you've got to hang with some really pretentious people before you see anyone even attempt appearing to enjoy classical music. In the circles in which I move,you're doing well if you know what an orchestra is. Quoth Tim:
Admitting that you like classical music these days is to confirm to others that you are either a) a nerd, b) gay, or c) hopelessly beyond help. If you ever want to stop a conversation, just mention Stravinsky.
One of his commenters, Dave in Hackensack wrote,
A few years ago, my girlfriend won a free trip for two to Boston to see the symphony there. We got the VIP treatment because my girlfriend's employer at the time was a major corporate sponsor. The first piece the symphony presented that night was something old and enjoyable, which was followed by a cacophonous piece of noise -- an excerpt from some forgotten opera written in the second half of the 20th Century.
At intermission, in the bar area for the big donors, I asked the symphony employee who had been chaperoning us about that horrible piece. She sort of acknowledged that it was rough on the ears, but said that the symphony had to get its patrons used to that sort of thing so it could become part of the cannon. That sort of attitude can't be making classical music any more popular.
This afternoon, I turned on the BSO from Symphony Hall on WGBH and Dave's experience was replicated. Two Mozart Arias began the program. Then a work the BSO commissioned by Gunther Schuller titled Where the World Ends was premiered. It did not come close to mediocrity. I don't know how the training program DinH mentioned is going, but the applause was tepid.
Hey, I hardly rise to the level of dilettante. Still, with confidence I claim to have better taste than James Levine. After all, he took up his post proclaiming devotion to the works of Arnold Schoenberg.
Supposedly, a lot of Bostonians have lost gobs of money in the current downturn. In the foreseeable future I doubt torturing the subscribers will be a good business plan.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Go Hypocrites!
In this post, as usual, we stand behind nothing that you will read. We have no special knowledge, so we are just guessing. Still the voice of humility economics department makes its offical statement.
The financial establishment has, through various mistakes, played itself out. Therefore, it needs a bailout. It needs this for two reasons.
1. it needs the money.
2. One very important and overlooked reason is because the money it uses to keep Congress in its pocket is gone, so it needs more money to keep Congress in its pocket.
Now, I'm sure there are those of you out there who touchingly believe our national legislature full of gentlemen and ladies (or that absurd construction, "gentleladies") who could never be bought. There are some, but they are few and far between.
The Republican, aka "the Stupid Party," are as horrible as the Dems. For the last eight years they have acquiesced in all the foolish spending of the prior administration. I would never appeal to their sense of honor as it would be foolish to call on something that does not exist.
No, the appeal is to their self interest. Any support of the current plan to save the nation will make failure bipartisan, but not success. This is no win.
So you must think I have no goodwill and wish for the plan's failure. Yes. Again, there is no claim to authority. Our guess is that the plan will not work and any success will be coincidental. Sooner or later every penny will have to be paid and even if the stars in their courses conspire to bring us out of our current downward spiral, it will just be postponement. Everything that has caused our problems must eventually be liquidated. whether it's all the goods on the docks or the social theories that lead us to believe that physics professorships not in proportion to every race and gender group is injustice.
If the Elephants can brave being called ractionaries and every other epithet until it starts to smell good because of the failure of the progressive model, maybe there would be some hope. There would be more if they actually came to believe.
In truth, we are not optimistic.
Moi, il faut cultiver notre jardin.
The financial establishment has, through various mistakes, played itself out. Therefore, it needs a bailout. It needs this for two reasons.
1. it needs the money.
2. One very important and overlooked reason is because the money it uses to keep Congress in its pocket is gone, so it needs more money to keep Congress in its pocket.
Now, I'm sure there are those of you out there who touchingly believe our national legislature full of gentlemen and ladies (or that absurd construction, "gentleladies") who could never be bought. There are some, but they are few and far between.
The Republican, aka "the Stupid Party," are as horrible as the Dems. For the last eight years they have acquiesced in all the foolish spending of the prior administration. I would never appeal to their sense of honor as it would be foolish to call on something that does not exist.
No, the appeal is to their self interest. Any support of the current plan to save the nation will make failure bipartisan, but not success. This is no win.
So you must think I have no goodwill and wish for the plan's failure. Yes. Again, there is no claim to authority. Our guess is that the plan will not work and any success will be coincidental. Sooner or later every penny will have to be paid and even if the stars in their courses conspire to bring us out of our current downward spiral, it will just be postponement. Everything that has caused our problems must eventually be liquidated. whether it's all the goods on the docks or the social theories that lead us to believe that physics professorships not in proportion to every race and gender group is injustice.
If the Elephants can brave being called ractionaries and every other epithet until it starts to smell good because of the failure of the progressive model, maybe there would be some hope. There would be more if they actually came to believe.
In truth, we are not optimistic.
Moi, il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Is there anything to miss?
Today, George W. Bush says au revoir. His reign has been, well, squalid. Still, one has to admit a grudging admiration. He was, maybe, the least Conservative president since Coolidge, yet he kept the loyalty of a majority of self identified Conservatives until the end. There are two reasons for this. Most self identified Cons wouldn't know what Conservatism really is if it bit them on the nose. Also, where could they go. Well, to the Paulistas, but they would have to do some thinking and reevaluating.
A Fox headline blares, Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials. That's understandable. He had his way with La Nancy more times than she would like to admit. As hated as he was at the end, his popularity dwarfed that of Congress.
It is easy to dismiss someone who appears as dumb as your man, but the class that loves to make jokes about how dumb he is, should think again. He may have done nothing for the country, but that does not mean he did not serve well a constituency. It just wasn't the constituency that voted for him.
George was as shrewd as all the folks who laugh at him in Harvard Square. They just never got the joke. They like to think it was all Rove or Cheney pulling strings. Maybe, maybe not. Keeping in mind that, I am going to repost , er, in the spirit of the age, recycle an old bit about the outgoing maximum leader from October, 2006.
The Dirty Little Secret is ....Dubya is a lot smarter than you think! Probably smarter than you.
No, he is no genius, but so what. De Tocqueville made the point that it is the second rate men (and now women) who go into politcs anyway. No, George is just smarter than anyone thinks he is. Now, I didn't vote for the man. I disagree with his foreign policy and most of his domestic agenda. So why am I on a crusade to defend his intellectual prowess?
I am not so much standing up for the man as observing the blindness of those who belittle his mind, which is just about everybody in the country who voted against him and thinks they are far brighter than he. Which is just about everyone in the country who voted against him. In fact, a lot of the people who voted for him figure they could give him a queen and two rooks and beat him in three moves.
Typical of the feelings of superiority expressed is this ancient entry in the old gnxp blogspot from 2002 by a very smart man who calls himself Godless Capitalist and is a scientist to boot:
"Not only is he inarticulate, he is neither well read nor curious to find out what he's missing. The man quoted "Jesus" as his favorite philosopher. Jesus! Now, perhaps my atheist bias may be showing, but I doubt that Bush would have been able to fill spots two through five on that list of the all time philosophical greats. Whether you believe that Jesus was really Bush's favorite philosopher or not, such a remark is equivalent to answering "E=mc^2" to "what's your favorite equation?" or "Einstein" to "who's your favorite scientist?". It's not that it's impossible that these are indeed the favorite equation or scientist, but rather that there is immediate doubt as to whether the questioned individual has any knowledge of science beyond popular culture."
Of course, he was referring to el Presidente and he was logically proving your man to be a babbling idiot. Certainly, his logic was complete. Christ never opined on the problems of existence in the manner of a philospher. Bush has never given any indication he is conversant with the tenets of any school of philosophy.
Sorry, but Monsieur Godless was wrong as are all of you who laughed your heads off. Bush gave the right answer. Yeah, all you geniuses, GWB was dead on. It may have been the wrong answer if it had been given in an oral exam for honors students majoring in philosophy, though the question of favorite lover of wisdom would not have been asked in such a test. It was certainly the smart choice in a nationally televised debate when the question was asked by some smarmy little inquisitor who was hoping the candidate would fall flat on his face.
Just what would go through your head when asked who your fave wise man is before a nation who would decide between you and another pol they would be stuck with for four years. Would you have thought, "Let me dazzle them. I wrote a great paper on Kant and the categorical imperative* sophmore year and if I can expound on it for two minutes the American people will be so taken with me that the election will be called off and even Gore will support my elevation." In the words of one of my favorite philosphers, Jon Lovitz, "Yeah, that's the ticket."
Now I know this is tough, but let us assume something did go on in the then governor's mind when the question was asked. Let us assume, from a political point of view, that it was as follows, "What kind of question is this? The people don't know from Aristotle to Wittgenstein and neither do I. Okay, what is my best choice, assuming the prejudices of the American people?"
Good job, George. If you had named any philospher, there would have been constant analysis all night of what a fool you were for your choice. The fact that the commentators couldn't say anything more than, "Of course Jesus was not actually a philosopher," was all to your advantage. Your born again base loved it and it did not hurt you at all with the three dozen Latinos and seven African American who actually voted for you.
Now let us contrast dumb ol' George with a man everyone in my home state acclaimed as a stone genius. Michael Stanley Dukakis. In his first gubernatorial campaign, the bumper stickers read "Mike Dukakis Should Be Governor." He was thought of as a messiah (even so, GW was smart enough not to choose him). Everybody respected the brain power of Dukakis.
How did he show it off when he had the big question tossed at him? Time has not been kind to my memory, but I believe it was Bernard Shaw who asked how he would react if his wife had been raped and murdered as he had the squishy liberal rep on the subject of crime. Well, our governor did reflect on the question and a national audience was treated to his reflection. And, it was treated to some more of his reflection. And, then a little more. Sleep eze sales had to suffer.
The Duke's answer was honest and stupid. He did not get it that he was talking to real people out there. What I don't get is how he stayed alive. Most married men who had answered the way he did and had gone home would have had a frosty reception. The wife would be thinking along these lines, "Oh, so I get raped and murdered and all he can think about is understanding the perp." Me, I'd stay up all night figuring I did not want to take a chance on being stabbed in my sleep. Maybe Mike spent the night in the famous tank.
The correct answer, had he really wanted the presidency, should have started with, "If someone did that to my wife I would want to cut off their balls and watch them bleed to death." The desire for revenge is a natural emotion and being so philosophic about everything tells people Dukakis was (still is, probably) on another planet and could care less about their very real concerns.
Bush the Father was easily able to triumph over Dukakis with "read my lips, no new taxes." Dad would get his comeuppance when he exposed himself as a liar on the subject. I am no admirer of the American electorate and it hardly makes us all out to be geniuses that when we turned our back on someone who so blatantly lied to us, we elected twice a man who never told us the truth, but the Old Man did get what was coming to him.
His son led us into a war we did not need and his "Compassionate Conservatism" is little more than social democracy lite (albeit an expensive sd lite). With gas prices starting to skyrocket before the last election, I thought he would lose. Is his maladministration going to take his party down in flames in November? Who knows? Still, on one night he beat the world. Whether he did because he was smart or lucky is no matter. He did it and the people who make fun of his intellect don't get it.
*Full disclosure, I was required to take four semesters of philosophy. Like our president, I took the gentleman's C. However, as I was not to the manor born and was doing it at a backwater papist college, it was a foolish thing. My method of attaining a C grade was to ask a friend majoring in philosophy, the minimum I needed to study to attain my goal. It worked, and there is not much at this late date I can tell you about the Categorical Imperative.
Will the new Divine Augustus have as good a run as George? Hard to say. George kept the expectations low. That Obama has been all but anointed makes the expectations unreal. Especially with the mess that Bush has left him. Hmmmm. Did W do that on purpose?
A Fox headline blares, Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials. That's understandable. He had his way with La Nancy more times than she would like to admit. As hated as he was at the end, his popularity dwarfed that of Congress.
It is easy to dismiss someone who appears as dumb as your man, but the class that loves to make jokes about how dumb he is, should think again. He may have done nothing for the country, but that does not mean he did not serve well a constituency. It just wasn't the constituency that voted for him.
George was as shrewd as all the folks who laugh at him in Harvard Square. They just never got the joke. They like to think it was all Rove or Cheney pulling strings. Maybe, maybe not. Keeping in mind that, I am going to repost , er, in the spirit of the age, recycle an old bit about the outgoing maximum leader from October, 2006.
The Dirty Little Secret is ....Dubya is a lot smarter than you think! Probably smarter than you.
No, he is no genius, but so what. De Tocqueville made the point that it is the second rate men (and now women) who go into politcs anyway. No, George is just smarter than anyone thinks he is. Now, I didn't vote for the man. I disagree with his foreign policy and most of his domestic agenda. So why am I on a crusade to defend his intellectual prowess?
I am not so much standing up for the man as observing the blindness of those who belittle his mind, which is just about everybody in the country who voted against him and thinks they are far brighter than he. Which is just about everyone in the country who voted against him. In fact, a lot of the people who voted for him figure they could give him a queen and two rooks and beat him in three moves.
Typical of the feelings of superiority expressed is this ancient entry in the old gnxp blogspot from 2002 by a very smart man who calls himself Godless Capitalist and is a scientist to boot:
"Not only is he inarticulate, he is neither well read nor curious to find out what he's missing. The man quoted "Jesus" as his favorite philosopher. Jesus! Now, perhaps my atheist bias may be showing, but I doubt that Bush would have been able to fill spots two through five on that list of the all time philosophical greats. Whether you believe that Jesus was really Bush's favorite philosopher or not, such a remark is equivalent to answering "E=mc^2" to "what's your favorite equation?" or "Einstein" to "who's your favorite scientist?". It's not that it's impossible that these are indeed the favorite equation or scientist, but rather that there is immediate doubt as to whether the questioned individual has any knowledge of science beyond popular culture."
Of course, he was referring to el Presidente and he was logically proving your man to be a babbling idiot. Certainly, his logic was complete. Christ never opined on the problems of existence in the manner of a philospher. Bush has never given any indication he is conversant with the tenets of any school of philosophy.
Sorry, but Monsieur Godless was wrong as are all of you who laughed your heads off. Bush gave the right answer. Yeah, all you geniuses, GWB was dead on. It may have been the wrong answer if it had been given in an oral exam for honors students majoring in philosophy, though the question of favorite lover of wisdom would not have been asked in such a test. It was certainly the smart choice in a nationally televised debate when the question was asked by some smarmy little inquisitor who was hoping the candidate would fall flat on his face.
Just what would go through your head when asked who your fave wise man is before a nation who would decide between you and another pol they would be stuck with for four years. Would you have thought, "Let me dazzle them. I wrote a great paper on Kant and the categorical imperative* sophmore year and if I can expound on it for two minutes the American people will be so taken with me that the election will be called off and even Gore will support my elevation." In the words of one of my favorite philosphers, Jon Lovitz, "Yeah, that's the ticket."
Now I know this is tough, but let us assume something did go on in the then governor's mind when the question was asked. Let us assume, from a political point of view, that it was as follows, "What kind of question is this? The people don't know from Aristotle to Wittgenstein and neither do I. Okay, what is my best choice, assuming the prejudices of the American people?"
Good job, George. If you had named any philospher, there would have been constant analysis all night of what a fool you were for your choice. The fact that the commentators couldn't say anything more than, "Of course Jesus was not actually a philosopher," was all to your advantage. Your born again base loved it and it did not hurt you at all with the three dozen Latinos and seven African American who actually voted for you.
Now let us contrast dumb ol' George with a man everyone in my home state acclaimed as a stone genius. Michael Stanley Dukakis. In his first gubernatorial campaign, the bumper stickers read "Mike Dukakis Should Be Governor." He was thought of as a messiah (even so, GW was smart enough not to choose him). Everybody respected the brain power of Dukakis.
How did he show it off when he had the big question tossed at him? Time has not been kind to my memory, but I believe it was Bernard Shaw who asked how he would react if his wife had been raped and murdered as he had the squishy liberal rep on the subject of crime. Well, our governor did reflect on the question and a national audience was treated to his reflection. And, it was treated to some more of his reflection. And, then a little more. Sleep eze sales had to suffer.
The Duke's answer was honest and stupid. He did not get it that he was talking to real people out there. What I don't get is how he stayed alive. Most married men who had answered the way he did and had gone home would have had a frosty reception. The wife would be thinking along these lines, "Oh, so I get raped and murdered and all he can think about is understanding the perp." Me, I'd stay up all night figuring I did not want to take a chance on being stabbed in my sleep. Maybe Mike spent the night in the famous tank.
The correct answer, had he really wanted the presidency, should have started with, "If someone did that to my wife I would want to cut off their balls and watch them bleed to death." The desire for revenge is a natural emotion and being so philosophic about everything tells people Dukakis was (still is, probably) on another planet and could care less about their very real concerns.
Bush the Father was easily able to triumph over Dukakis with "read my lips, no new taxes." Dad would get his comeuppance when he exposed himself as a liar on the subject. I am no admirer of the American electorate and it hardly makes us all out to be geniuses that when we turned our back on someone who so blatantly lied to us, we elected twice a man who never told us the truth, but the Old Man did get what was coming to him.
His son led us into a war we did not need and his "Compassionate Conservatism" is little more than social democracy lite (albeit an expensive sd lite). With gas prices starting to skyrocket before the last election, I thought he would lose. Is his maladministration going to take his party down in flames in November? Who knows? Still, on one night he beat the world. Whether he did because he was smart or lucky is no matter. He did it and the people who make fun of his intellect don't get it.
*Full disclosure, I was required to take four semesters of philosophy. Like our president, I took the gentleman's C. However, as I was not to the manor born and was doing it at a backwater papist college, it was a foolish thing. My method of attaining a C grade was to ask a friend majoring in philosophy, the minimum I needed to study to attain my goal. It worked, and there is not much at this late date I can tell you about the Categorical Imperative.
Will the new Divine Augustus have as good a run as George? Hard to say. George kept the expectations low. That Obama has been all but anointed makes the expectations unreal. Especially with the mess that Bush has left him. Hmmmm. Did W do that on purpose?
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Don't Just Do Something, Stand There. Always.
Over at Dennis Mangan’s blog they are discussing a weighty subject, reaction. They might even call it Reactionism. It may not be the first annual Carnival of Reaction, but there is a lot of firepower with Mencius and Auster chiming in and de Maistre harked back to as an eponymous hero. He's even set up a totem. One post and I might have stayed afloat, but Dennis and friends have gone on a tear and I’m awash.
With that in mind, I will give you the bit of literature that turned me into a reactionary.
‘Very well,’ I said quietly, ‘Why do you always answer no?’
He stirred perceptible in his chair and filled the teacup up again before he spoke. He seemed to have some difficulty in finding the words.
‘ “No” is, generally speaking, a better answer than “Yes”,’ he said at last. He seemed to speak eagerly, his word coming out as if they had been imprisoned in his mouth for a thousand years. He seemed relieved that I had found a way to make him speak. I thought he even smiled slightly at me but this was doubtless the trickery of the bad morning light or a mischief worked by the shadows of the lamp. He swalloed a long draught of tea and sat waiting, looking at me with his queer eyes. They were now bright and active and moved restlessly in their yellow wrinkled sockets.
‘Do you refuse to tell me why you say that?’ I asked
‘No,’ he said. ‘When I was a young man I led an unsatisfactory life and devoted most of my time to excesses of one kind or another, my principal weakness being Number One. I was also party to the formation of an artificial manure-ring.’
My mind went back at once to John Diviney, to the farm and the public house and on from that to the horrible afternoon we had spent on the wet lonely road. As if to interrupt my unhappy thoughts I heard Joe’s voice again, this time severe:
No need to ask him what Number One is, we do not want lurid descriptions of vice or anything at all in that line. Use your imagination. Ask him what all this has to do with Yes and No.
‘What has that got to do with Yes and No?’
‘After a time,’ said old Mathers disregarding me, ‘I mercifully perceived the error of my ways and the unhappy destination I would reach unless I mended them. I retired from the world in order to try to comprehend it and to find out why it becomes more unsavoury as the years accumulate on a man’s body. What do you think I discovered at the end of my meditations?’
I felt please again. He was now questioning me.
‘What?’
‘That No is a better word than Yes’ he replied.
This seemed to leave us where we were, I thought.
On the contrary, very far from it. I am beginning to agree with him. There is a lot to be said for No as a General Principle. Ask him what he means.
‘What do you mean?’ I inquired.
‘When I was meditating,’ said old Mathers, ‘I took all my sins out and put them on the table, so to speak. I need not tell you it was a big table.’
He seemed to give a very dry smile at his own joke. I chuckled to encourage him.
‘I gave them all a strict examination, weighed them and viewed them from all angles of the compass. I asked mysef how I came to commit them, where I was and whom I was with when I came to do them.’
This is very wholesome stuff, every word a sermon in itself. Listen very carefully. Ask him to continue.
‘Continue,’ I said.
I confess I felt a click inside me very near my stomach as if Joe had put a finger to his lip and pricked up a pair of limp spaniel ears to make sure that no syllable of the wisdom escaped him.
‘I discovered’,’ he said, ‘that everything you do is in response to a request or a suggestion made to you by some other party either inside you or outside. Some of these suggestions are good and praiseworthy and some of them are undoubtedly delightful. But the majority of them are definitely bad and are pretty considerable sins as sins go. Do you understand me?’
‘Perfectly.’
‘I would say that the bad ones outnumber the good ones by three to one.’
Six to one if you ask me.
‘I therefore decided to say No henceforth to every suggestion, request or inquiry whether inward or outward. It was the only simple formula which was sure and safe. It was difficult to practise at first and often called for heroism but I persevered and hardly ever broke down completely. It is now many yeas since I said Yes. I have refused more requests and negatived more statements than any man living or dead. I have rejected, reneged, disagreed, refused and denied to an estent that is unbelievable.’
An excellent and original régime. This is all extremely interesting and salutary, ivery syllable a sermon in itself. Very, very wholesome.
‘Extremely interesting,’ I said to old Mathers.
‘The system leads to peace and contentment,’ he said. ‘People do not trouble to ask you questions if they know the answer is a foregone conclusion. Thoughts which have no chance of succeeding do ont take the trouble to come into your head at all.’
‘You must find it irksome in some ways,’ I suggested. ‘If for instance I were to offer you a glass of whiskey...’
‘Such few friends as I have,’ he answered, ‘are usually good enough to arrange such invitations in a way that will enable me to adhere to my system and also accept the whiskey. More than once I have been asked whether I would refuse such things.’
‘And the answer is still no?’
‘Certainly,’
From Flann O’Briens The Third Policeman.
Just remember, not every idea is wrong, but the number that are right is statistically insignificant.
Okay, I admit, I’m glad they improved hernia surgery.
With that in mind, I will give you the bit of literature that turned me into a reactionary.
‘Very well,’ I said quietly, ‘Why do you always answer no?’
He stirred perceptible in his chair and filled the teacup up again before he spoke. He seemed to have some difficulty in finding the words.
‘ “No” is, generally speaking, a better answer than “Yes”,’ he said at last. He seemed to speak eagerly, his word coming out as if they had been imprisoned in his mouth for a thousand years. He seemed relieved that I had found a way to make him speak. I thought he even smiled slightly at me but this was doubtless the trickery of the bad morning light or a mischief worked by the shadows of the lamp. He swalloed a long draught of tea and sat waiting, looking at me with his queer eyes. They were now bright and active and moved restlessly in their yellow wrinkled sockets.
‘Do you refuse to tell me why you say that?’ I asked
‘No,’ he said. ‘When I was a young man I led an unsatisfactory life and devoted most of my time to excesses of one kind or another, my principal weakness being Number One. I was also party to the formation of an artificial manure-ring.’
My mind went back at once to John Diviney, to the farm and the public house and on from that to the horrible afternoon we had spent on the wet lonely road. As if to interrupt my unhappy thoughts I heard Joe’s voice again, this time severe:
No need to ask him what Number One is, we do not want lurid descriptions of vice or anything at all in that line. Use your imagination. Ask him what all this has to do with Yes and No.
‘What has that got to do with Yes and No?’
‘After a time,’ said old Mathers disregarding me, ‘I mercifully perceived the error of my ways and the unhappy destination I would reach unless I mended them. I retired from the world in order to try to comprehend it and to find out why it becomes more unsavoury as the years accumulate on a man’s body. What do you think I discovered at the end of my meditations?’
I felt please again. He was now questioning me.
‘What?’
‘That No is a better word than Yes’ he replied.
This seemed to leave us where we were, I thought.
On the contrary, very far from it. I am beginning to agree with him. There is a lot to be said for No as a General Principle. Ask him what he means.
‘What do you mean?’ I inquired.
‘When I was meditating,’ said old Mathers, ‘I took all my sins out and put them on the table, so to speak. I need not tell you it was a big table.’
He seemed to give a very dry smile at his own joke. I chuckled to encourage him.
‘I gave them all a strict examination, weighed them and viewed them from all angles of the compass. I asked mysef how I came to commit them, where I was and whom I was with when I came to do them.’
This is very wholesome stuff, every word a sermon in itself. Listen very carefully. Ask him to continue.
‘Continue,’ I said.
I confess I felt a click inside me very near my stomach as if Joe had put a finger to his lip and pricked up a pair of limp spaniel ears to make sure that no syllable of the wisdom escaped him.
‘I discovered’,’ he said, ‘that everything you do is in response to a request or a suggestion made to you by some other party either inside you or outside. Some of these suggestions are good and praiseworthy and some of them are undoubtedly delightful. But the majority of them are definitely bad and are pretty considerable sins as sins go. Do you understand me?’
‘Perfectly.’
‘I would say that the bad ones outnumber the good ones by three to one.’
Six to one if you ask me.
‘I therefore decided to say No henceforth to every suggestion, request or inquiry whether inward or outward. It was the only simple formula which was sure and safe. It was difficult to practise at first and often called for heroism but I persevered and hardly ever broke down completely. It is now many yeas since I said Yes. I have refused more requests and negatived more statements than any man living or dead. I have rejected, reneged, disagreed, refused and denied to an estent that is unbelievable.’
An excellent and original régime. This is all extremely interesting and salutary, ivery syllable a sermon in itself. Very, very wholesome.
‘Extremely interesting,’ I said to old Mathers.
‘The system leads to peace and contentment,’ he said. ‘People do not trouble to ask you questions if they know the answer is a foregone conclusion. Thoughts which have no chance of succeeding do ont take the trouble to come into your head at all.’
‘You must find it irksome in some ways,’ I suggested. ‘If for instance I were to offer you a glass of whiskey...’
‘Such few friends as I have,’ he answered, ‘are usually good enough to arrange such invitations in a way that will enable me to adhere to my system and also accept the whiskey. More than once I have been asked whether I would refuse such things.’
‘And the answer is still no?’
‘Certainly,’
From Flann O’Briens The Third Policeman.
Just remember, not every idea is wrong, but the number that are right is statistically insignificant.
Okay, I admit, I’m glad they improved hernia surgery.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Genius Will Out, as buffoonery
TV Magazine 60 Minutes thinks they have the goods. They are sure oil prices defied the law of supply and deman so that evil investment banks could profiteer. Steve Kroft is clueless as usual. Supply and demand does not mean everything is always in balance depending on what that balance is. Maybe at certain points markets reflect an oversupply of stupidity.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
The Bonaparte quote is overused and I’m late to the game with it. Still, we can employ it to start. The big boys at the Morgan and Goldman Deutsche Bank thought they knew everything about everything as did all the hotshots throughout the financial world. They took positions in a commodity that few can do without. Were they trying to go all Nelson Bunker Hunt on the world. Beats me, but the results were the same.
How much of their activities caused the run up in oil prices, I would guess a lot. It’s as if someone in the office came in on a Monday and said, “Hey, I read this great book last weekend called “The Long Emergency” and there’s almost no oil left. If we can get it all, we can, “Dare I say it, rule the world.”*
Actually, they started their quest in 2004 before Kunstler published his book. In May of 2008, well before prices collapsed, someone noticed. The blog Peak Oil Debunked (PO) posted about how Morgan, Goldman and others were putting the stuff by to make a killing. He wrote when prices were $130 and were poised up ever up until $147 and then the Masters of the Universe had us all in the palm of their hands.
Er, no. We have seen what has happened to the price those stone geniuses were betting on. They must have lost big. I just wonder how much of the bailout, if any of it, was to cover stupid bets that if there Hahvud Economics Doctorates or (across the Charles) the B School MBAs should have figured out was bound to happen.
On commenter on the PO site mentioned a 15 May 2008 Reuters article,
"JPMorgan to start physical oil trade, eyes $200 oil"
As they say on the Guinness commercial, Brilliant.
Our family only gets gas stingy cars and so my mantra became is this trip necessary. Other folks sold the SUV and boom, demand collapsed enough to kill the game. Supply and demand came back into balance, not. The geniuses still can’t get rid of the stuff.
That still doesn’t stop Kunstler from being a doomer, but I don’t feel all that well about the economy either.
I should mention as an aside, back in May, when PO posted, some commentters called him an idiot. In the words of Brenda Lee, "Who's sorry now?"
*Apologies to Victor Spinetti and the Beatles movie, Help!.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
The Bonaparte quote is overused and I’m late to the game with it. Still, we can employ it to start. The big boys at the Morgan and Goldman Deutsche Bank thought they knew everything about everything as did all the hotshots throughout the financial world. They took positions in a commodity that few can do without. Were they trying to go all Nelson Bunker Hunt on the world. Beats me, but the results were the same.
How much of their activities caused the run up in oil prices, I would guess a lot. It’s as if someone in the office came in on a Monday and said, “Hey, I read this great book last weekend called “The Long Emergency” and there’s almost no oil left. If we can get it all, we can, “Dare I say it, rule the world.”*
Actually, they started their quest in 2004 before Kunstler published his book. In May of 2008, well before prices collapsed, someone noticed. The blog Peak Oil Debunked (PO) posted about how Morgan, Goldman and others were putting the stuff by to make a killing. He wrote when prices were $130 and were poised up ever up until $147 and then the Masters of the Universe had us all in the palm of their hands.
Er, no. We have seen what has happened to the price those stone geniuses were betting on. They must have lost big. I just wonder how much of the bailout, if any of it, was to cover stupid bets that if there Hahvud Economics Doctorates or (across the Charles) the B School MBAs should have figured out was bound to happen.
On commenter on the PO site mentioned a 15 May 2008 Reuters article,
"JPMorgan to start physical oil trade, eyes $200 oil"
As they say on the Guinness commercial, Brilliant.
Our family only gets gas stingy cars and so my mantra became is this trip necessary. Other folks sold the SUV and boom, demand collapsed enough to kill the game. Supply and demand came back into balance, not. The geniuses still can’t get rid of the stuff.
That still doesn’t stop Kunstler from being a doomer, but I don’t feel all that well about the economy either.
I should mention as an aside, back in May, when PO posted, some commentters called him an idiot. In the words of Brenda Lee, "Who's sorry now?"
*Apologies to Victor Spinetti and the Beatles movie, Help!.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Happy New Year!
he voice of humility wishes everyone a happy and politically incorrect 2009 Anno Domini.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Convergence
So a congressman from the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts shepherds the auto bailout bill though the lower house and it dies in the Senate. Then the Pres from the party of fiscal responsibility says he'll use already approved funds to do it.
the question is, is Barney Frank a George Bush Democrat or is George Bush a Barney Frank Republican?
the question is, is Barney Frank a George Bush Democrat or is George Bush a Barney Frank Republican?
Monday, December 01, 2008
I felt better about myself after reading it.
I'm not all that wild about City Journal. It seems to be a bit too Neoconnish. Still, I do enjoy the articles written by Theodore Dalrymple. I especially enjoyed his The Quivering Upper Lip, The British character: from self-restraint to self-indulgence if only because I can steal from it.
Here is a couple of paragraphs extolling Brit character.
His piece praises the old Brits of all classes as models of class, but contrasts them today as people of no class.
No culture changes suddenly, and the elderly often retained the attitudes of their youth. I remember working for a short time in a general practice in a small country town where an old man called me to his house. I found him very weak from chronic blood loss, unable to rise from his bed, and asked him why he had not called me earlier. “I didn’t like to disturb you, Doctor,” he said. “I know you are a very busy man.”
From a rational point of view, this was absurd. What could I possibly need to do that was more important than attending to such an ill man? But I found his self-effacement deeply moving. It was not the product of a lack of self-esteem, that psychological notion used to justify rampant egotism; nor was it the result of having been downtrodden by a tyrannical government that accorded no worth to its citizens. It was instead an existential, almost religious, modesty, an awareness that he was far from being all-important.
Shallow fellow that I am, all I wish to use this for is another entry in The Short Dictionary of Politics. We shall take, self-esteem, that psychological notion used to justify rampant egotism and appropriate it with a slight change.
In this country, I knew we were going to end up homeschooling our kids when in First Grade the Dare officer gave out teddy bears in a self esteem raising exercise.
So how does it all work out among Les Anglais. According to Ted
Certainly, many Britons under the age of 30 or even 40 now embrace a kind of sub-psychotherapeutic theory that desires, if not unleashed, will fester within and eventually manifest themselves in dangerous ways. To control oneself for the sake of the social order, let alone for dignity or decorum (a word that would either mean nothing to the British these days, or provoke peals of laughter), is thus both personally and socially harmful.
I have spoken with young British people who regularly drink themselves into oblivion, passing first through a prolonged phase of public nuisance. To a man (and woman), they believe that by doing so, they are getting rid of inhibitions that might otherwise do them psychological and even physical harm. The same belief seems universal among those who spend hours at soccer games screaming abuse and making threatening gestures (whose meaning many would put into practice, were those events not policed in military fashion).
Here is a couple of paragraphs extolling Brit character.
His piece praises the old Brits of all classes as models of class, but contrasts them today as people of no class.
No culture changes suddenly, and the elderly often retained the attitudes of their youth. I remember working for a short time in a general practice in a small country town where an old man called me to his house. I found him very weak from chronic blood loss, unable to rise from his bed, and asked him why he had not called me earlier. “I didn’t like to disturb you, Doctor,” he said. “I know you are a very busy man.”
From a rational point of view, this was absurd. What could I possibly need to do that was more important than attending to such an ill man? But I found his self-effacement deeply moving. It was not the product of a lack of self-esteem, that psychological notion used to justify rampant egotism; nor was it the result of having been downtrodden by a tyrannical government that accorded no worth to its citizens. It was instead an existential, almost religious, modesty, an awareness that he was far from being all-important.
Shallow fellow that I am, all I wish to use this for is another entry in The Short Dictionary of Politics. We shall take, self-esteem, that psychological notion used to justify rampant egotism and appropriate it with a slight change.
In this country, I knew we were going to end up homeschooling our kids when in First Grade the Dare officer gave out teddy bears in a self esteem raising exercise.
So how does it all work out among Les Anglais. According to Ted
Certainly, many Britons under the age of 30 or even 40 now embrace a kind of sub-psychotherapeutic theory that desires, if not unleashed, will fester within and eventually manifest themselves in dangerous ways. To control oneself for the sake of the social order, let alone for dignity or decorum (a word that would either mean nothing to the British these days, or provoke peals of laughter), is thus both personally and socially harmful.
I have spoken with young British people who regularly drink themselves into oblivion, passing first through a prolonged phase of public nuisance. To a man (and woman), they believe that by doing so, they are getting rid of inhibitions that might otherwise do them psychological and even physical harm. The same belief seems universal among those who spend hours at soccer games screaming abuse and making threatening gestures (whose meaning many would put into practice, were those events not policed in military fashion).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)