Home » Posts tagged 'Culture Wars' (Page 23)
Tag Archives: Culture Wars
O Frabjous Day in the UK
How wonderful when pundits get it so magnificently wrong.
‘Twas brillig in Britain this week when David Cameron vanquished his frumious foes and went galumphing back to 10 Downing Street, chortling all the way.
The best part is not that the conservatives won, but that the pollsters were — again — so whifflingly off the mark. Just as last September’s referendum on Scottish cessation — predicted “too close to call” — was defeated by an easy ten-point margin, similarly did Mr. Cameron’s party cut off the head of the opposition with a deft snicker-snack.
Isn’t it mimsy that life — especially politics — can still hold a few surprises? Maybe we can learn not to vote for the front-runners just because they’re the front-runners.
Of course, the victorious Prime Minister shouldn’t get too beamish. A resurgent Scottish National party promises renewed efforts to split what’s left of the British Empire. To be sure, the next jabberwock lies in wait right around the corner.
As John Simpson, my political science professor at the University of Edinburgh, once remarked:
“The world of politics is like what you see when you lift up a great, flat stone and watch all the wee beasties running around beneath it.”
Callooh! Callay!
Send us your email, and we will send you the first four chapters of Proverbial Beauty – free!
Guns or Butter
A college senior’s experience in an upper-division seminar in sociology depends primarily on one factor: the professor. I had the best.
I had never had an instructor like Professor Dukes. On the surface, he often didn’t seem to teach. If he came into the classroom and found the students immersed in conversation, he might listen in for a while, then gradually enter into the conversation himself and steer it in a direction relevant to the broader aims of the course. His breezy style created an atmosphere where all his students felt themselves participants, rather than pupils, and for years after graduation I found my thoughts drifting back to sociology and Richard Dukes.
But one class in particular has stuck in my memory. That was the day Professor Dukes came into the room with a board game tucked under his arm. On the cover was printed the name Guns or Butter.
The premise of the game was simple. The class divided up into four groups, each representing a different, fictitious nation. The objective was for each group to build up its nation, attempting to balance external security through a strong military — guns — with internal security through social programs — butter. Two countries were superpowers in the midst of a cold war, similar to the United States and the Soviet Union. One was an impoverished, third world agrarian country. And one was an emerging industrial nation, like Japan after World War II.
I became Prime Minister of Japan.
It was neither my political savvy nor my popularity that won me the job. When my group received its assignment and our members looked around uneasily at one another, I took the initiative to ask, “Who wants to be Prime Minister?”
The student to my right immediately replied, “I nominate you.” The student to her right quickly added, “I second the nomination.” The student on my left chimed in, “All in favor, say ‘Aye.'”
The ayes had it.
HOLDING THE REINS OF POWER
So I appointed my cabinet and began issuing directives. I instructed my foreign minister to negotiate peace treaties with the two superpowers; I dispatched my minister of commerce to circulate among the other nations and secure as many trade contracts as possible; and I ordered my minister of defense to build up our military as effectively as possible without compromising our economic development.
Each turn represented ten years.
Fearful of one another, the superpowers poured their entire budget into defense. With no economic infrastructure, the third world country stagnated. In contrast, our emerging economy exploded. By the end of the game, after the equivalent of 50 years, my country had the largest economy and the most powerful military in the world.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. The growth of our nation was astonishing. Driven by economic opportunity and fear of our precarious position between two industrial and military giants, my minister of commerce pushed through trade negotiations that sparked our own industrial and economic revolutions. After four turns, we had more money than we knew what to do with, and our armed forces rivaled those of the superpowers.
As a conservative hawk (son of a conservative hawk), I had originally looked at my country’s economic development as the key to military security. With that achieved, however, I began to see new possibilities. Why not use more of our profits for social programs? We could expand education, promote family structure, create incentives and opportunities for employment, and begin to eliminate poverty.
This is what I told my cabinet.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INSURRECTION
But they had other ideas. “We won’t have real security until we have The Bomb,” declared my defense minister, suddenly turning against me.
“We don’t need The Bomb,” I argued back. “Neither of the superpowers is powerful enough to attack us, they distrust each other too much to ally against us, and three equally balanced superpowers will produce a safer world than two. We can secure a safer world while doing what’s best for our own people.”
But he was not to be dissuaded, and neither were the others. The minister of defense called for a vote of no-confidence, and my cabinet unanimously threw me out of office and pursued its quest for nuclear superiority. Had the game continued for a few more turns, I have no doubt they would have started World War III.
In their positions, I would likely have sided with them. A defense minister’s job is to secure the resources for national security. A foreign minister’s job is to anticipate any potential crisis in international relations. And a commerce minister’s job is to ensure the impact of foreign relations on economic prosperity. Each of my ministers seemed to believe that military buildup would best serve the interests of our country.
But as Prime Minister, it was my job to see the whole picture, to concentrate on both external and internal matters, to strike a balance between the interests of our nation among the community of nations and the interests of our country as a community of individuals. My ministers were so focused on one that they lost sight of the other.
THE JOURNEY TO REACH SAFE HARBOR
A good leader cannot afford to place too much value on any single consideration. He must keep track of the details, but his first priority is to keep his ship of state on course so that it reaches its destination by fulfilling its national mission. If he loses his sense of direction, he will surely lead his people into confusion and self-destruction.
Just as leaders in business, in government, and in the military must guard themselves against becoming so lost in the details that they forget their real purpose, so too must those charged with spiritual leadership guard against becoming so distracted by the details of material survival that we forget the higher mission imposed upon us by the promptings of the conscience and the soul. Each of us is chief executive over himself, and each of us must coordinate a cabinet of “ministers,” the impulses of desire and self-interest that see only their own individual pieces of the picture and act without knowledge of the picture as a whole.
The arguments of these “ministers” are often compelling. They urge us to seek material comfort and security, to pursue physical pleasures and rewards. But when we remember that we are priests of the Kingdom of Mankind, then we will remain focused on our true mission and, by elevating the world around us, we will experience the reward of true meaning and enduring success.
MayPac — the untold story
Welcome to the Roman Empire.
Even if you aren’t a student of history, you may remember learning about the “bread and circuses” of ancient Rome. By providing basic foodstuffs and the spectacle of gladiatorial combat, the Roman elites simultaneously invented the welfare state and the entertainment industry. Savvy enough to anesthetize the commoners into complacency, the aristocracy were then able to wallow in their epicurean and carnal orgies unmolested.
In our times, we don’t need the state to provide the bread. Burger King, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell supply our undiscriminating culinary needs. The gladiatorial circuses have been reincarnated in the form of the NFL, except when the brutal melee of the gridiron is eclipsed by a billion-dollar fist-fight.
Enter Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao. Their Romanesque and obscenely over-hyped bout, the much ballyhooed fight-of-the-century, came and went and will be soon forgotten… full of sound and fury, a tale told by an idiot.
But here’s a side of the event you won’t have read about in the papers or seen on ESPN.
My friend Art works for one of the big internet service providers. Friday was mayhem, as all the people whose service had been suspended for non-payment called in with either back-payments or desperate pleas for mercy so they could watch the spectacle. The tone of hysteria in call after call set Art’s teeth on edge.
Then this:
The woman called in, several hundred dollars behind in her bill, far too much in arrears for any kind of leniency. But she claimed extraordinary need. And her story was nothing less than extraordinary.
Her brother had just died. Her family was coming in the funeral. She explained frantically that she had to have internet service so that her siblings and cousins would be able to watch the fight.
Art literally put his head in his hands as he told me the tale. “I’d rather believe she was making it all up as a ruse to gain my sympathy,” he said. “But who could make up a story like that?”
Who, indeed? Once we have come to a place where we can conflate the loss of a loved one with the lost opportunity to watch two palookas beat each other senseless, I suspect that even the Romans would look upon us disdainfully and uncomprehending.
And, of course, we know what happened to Rome.
#MayPac
The War on Women Continues
From the Huffington Post:
British chess grandmaster Nigel Short is responding to criticism after recently arguing that inherent differences in men’s and women’s brains may explain why there are fewer female chess champions than males ones.
“Men and women’s brains are hard-wired very differently, so why should they function in the same way? I don’t have the slightest problem in acknowledging that my wife possesses a much higher degree of emotional intelligence than I do,” he wrote in the February issue of New In Chess magazine. “One is not better than the other, we just have different skills.”
“It would be wonderful to see more girls playing chess, and at a higher level, but rather than fretting about inequality, perhaps we should just gracefully accept it as a fact,” he added.
So why would Huff Post run such a blatantly chauvinistic report? Well, obviously, for the counter-offensive that makes up the last 60% of the article. Then, of course, you have the comments, which fluctuate wildly between the apoplectic, the apologetic, the politically correct, and the well-reasoned.
Anyone who has raised children or taught school knows that males and females are more different than some species. We have different strengths and weaknesses, which is why it makes sense that we form partnerships called “the family.”
It’s both fascinating and disturbing that so many people are offended by those who say so.
Turnaround, or fair play?
Last week, John Roberts reported for jury duty, not as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but as John Q. Public at Maryland’s Montgomery County courthouse. He wasn’t selected in the end, but he came within measurable distance of serving as an ordinary juror on a case that would determine damages in an automobile accident.
Does this reflect what’s best in America, that no one is exempt from performing his civic duty? Or is it symptomatic of the most absurd form of political correctness, which demands equivalence in all arenas and all situations, no matter how un-equivalent they may be?
So what do you think: would it have been worth shutting down the highest court in the land so that our top jurist could sit in the place of an average citizen? Leave a comment with your take on the question.
Bad Hair Day at CSI
Since 2012, the FBI has been reviewing some 2600 convictions from the ’80s and ’90s that depended on hair analysis. With 268 cases reviewed so far, more than 95% have been called into question, according to NewScientist.
This doesn’t mean that science is unreliable. Rather, it reinforces the well-known computer adage of GIGO — garbage in, garbage out. In other words, technology is only as good as the people using it.
So when it comes to understanding the origins of the universe, the evolution of man, the nature of human psychology, or the changing climate patterns of our planet, perhaps a bit more humility is in order before we jump to conclusions that new discoveries might force us to reverse tomorrow or the next day.
Our world is a complicated place. Instead of insisting that we have everything figured out, let’s watch the sun rise and listen to the rain fall while we enjoy the mystery of it all.
The New Polarization
A college student who rarely attended classes and turned in assignments poorly done or not at all, emailed his professor after receiving his final grade to ask if there was any way he could raise his grade — an F earned with a 25% average — to a C. Even grade inflation couldn’t help this hapless soul.
But hope springs eternal, and wishful thinking has become so pervasive that it has a new name: magical thinking, as if wishing just isn’t enough anymore.
It’s everywhere. Government programs with no revenue to pay for them. Students acquiring massive debt from loans to procure degrees in art history, classical philosophy or — no joke — viking studies. State sponsored alternative energy schemes built on nothing but high-minded intentions. School boards hiring puppet administrators and then firing them when student performance crashes.
On the one hand, we indulge in the most irrational flights of fancy with no concern for the consequences. On the other, we resist thinking out of the box by denying ourselves the opportunity to engage people with opposing viewpoints in civil discourse.
Is this the new face of polarization? Not just between groups, but within our own minds?
Instead, let’s turn it around: challenge yourself to seek out new viewpoints and strategies, not to escape from reality but to deal with it and succeed.
Holocaust Day — Visionaries and Ideology
Who knew a trip to New York could be so emotional?
I didn’t want to go in the first place. As my 92-year-old student likes to quote: Travelling is for peasants.
But my wife convinced me with simple arithmetic. Four tickets to bring three kids and son-in-law home or two tickets to visit them. No-brainer.
So I went grudgingly, confirming in the end the truism that some of life’s most profound moments come not only unexpected but against our will.
Our first stop was the 9/11 museum. I marveled at the artistic vision that had conceived the memorial pools, the water channeling down in rivulets that mirrored the face of the fallen towers, the continuous downward rush balanced by the redemptive feeling of water — the source of life — returning to the heart of the world. Here there was solace, closure, and consolation.
But a very different feeling accosted me inside. Almost upon entering the doors a single word brandished itself across my mind’s eye: Holocaust.
Let me explain.
Read the whole article here.
Dangerous Freedom
With the holiday of Passover behind us, the dangers of freedom become more threatening than ever.
Freedom is a privilege, not an inheritance. Freedom is an obligation, not a right. Freedom calls us to duty, not to indulgence.
And the illusion of freedom may be the cruelest tyrant of all, seducing us into accepting the slavery of ego, impulse, and comfort.
Every day we should ask ourselves: are we fighting to deserve and to preserve the freedom that our fathers fought so hard for us to have?
The Hazards of Headline News
Here’s an insidious little headline: Money, Not Marriage, Makes Parents Better
Family structure, family meals, limiting television, extracurriculars. No worries. None of it makes much of a difference. Your child’s success or failure in life will have more to do with how much money you have. If it’s in LiveScience, it must be true. No?
Thanks to the U.S. Census Bureau for using our tax dollars to produce such a sinister study. Maybe their next project will offer similarly insightful results. How about something like this: Wings, Not Landing Gear, Make Air Travel Safer.
Well, sure, up to a point. But what does one really have to do with the other?
Read the whole post here.
Yonason Goldson 