Two Questions - Continued (part 3, conclusion)

What Happens When the Basic Building Block is destroyed?

What is happening to the building block?

Over the past 100 years, we’ve moved incrementally away from the historical model of a family.  First, we’ve removed the extended family, then we weakened the historical ties, then we questioned the value of life, and now we argue the family itself is corrupt and out of date.  So, what can possibly go wrong?

Historically, when a child reached adulthood and started their own family they moved out, but not far away.  Today, thanks to modern transportation we routinely migrate hundreds and perhaps thousands of miles away from the parents as we start our new lives.  This migration has always been a part of the American experience, but today we see it on a much larger scale than the past.  We’ve become a nation on the move where those who can afford to – never seem to find a place of permanence.  

Grandparents and cousins are pictures on the wall, not routine visitors and playmates.  Gatherings at the holidays will find some excluded for any of a hundred reasons.  The extended family’s ability to help raise and shape the child in the values of the society is often lost in the mobility of today’s world.

Today we see the erosion of the historical values of society as the newer generations become an adult with values derived from external sources like school and television.  Here the values of the family core are displaced by the values of the writers in the entertainment industry or in the philosophies of the educators.   We’ve left the shaping of the child to those who have no direct interest in his or her success or failure.

I believe the result is a child goes through their development with an incomplete picture of society, how they fit within it, and what are the reasonable moral values of a society that will prosper and grow.  They have become individuals who are focused on remaining individuals and not part of the greater family group.

What happens when the family group disappears?

History tells us the society will end.

Two Questions - Continued (part 2)

What is the basic building block of a society

I’ve scoured the internet, spending minutes of my life searching for something, anything that would suggest I am wrong, but there was nothing.  Most of what I find supports the theory -- that going back to our earliest times the family group has been the basis for society.  It is not the individual, a political party, or even a group of friends.  It is the family.  There are all kinds of cliché about this, starting with “blood is thicker than water,” and moving into “the nuclear family.”  The historical perspective was a core family has a mother, a father, and their children.  From those grow the “extended” family of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc..  The roles of the parents have had some flexibility, but we will get into that in a bit.

In Ms. Clinton’s appropriation of an African proverb about it taking a village to raise a child she misses the main point of the proverb.  She suggests it is the role of the village to raise and train the child to conform, suggesting that role should be fulfilled by the government.  In looking at historical African village concepts they are generally centered around a single-family group which is a part of a larger tribe.  There is in its center the “alpha” family and then the extended uncles, aunts, cousins and nephews of the chief.  Polygamy was not unheard of and like a pride of lions there would be one chief with multiple wives.  But the point remains in the proverb you can replace “it takes a village” with “it takes a family.”

Modern idealists say children are born innocent and are corrupted by the world.  I’m sorry, but I have to take issue with the premise a child is born innocent or guilty.  I don’t intend to get into the idea of sin or religion, but children are born without knowledge.  A lack of knowledge is not the same thing as innocence.  I believe it is their inherent survival instinct that guides their earliest actions.  They know only what they need or want, and concern for anything else is nonexistent.  If they are hungry or soiled they demand attention, and from those initial demands they begin to develop learned behaviors.  The psychology of child development seems to be fairly well researched, at least within the standards of Western European culture.  There must be a thousand books or websites available to help guide parents into what the experts say is a “normal” development.  My parents had Dr. Spock and today’s parents have a bunch of radicals suggesting just how to make the perfect child.  Of course, all of this is based on rigid (or rigged) research to support the researchers claims.  Behavioral psychology, it seems, has fallen out of favor these days, but I recall the research of Dr. B.F. Skinner who kept his infant daughter in an enclosed box so he could study her in an environment without human interaction/nurturing.

This quote from Dr. John B. Watson helps understand why the behaviorists don’t seem to be in the news too much but it was the progressive thought of the early 20^th century.   What I find intriguing though is how closely it aligns to modern progressive thinking.  The government can shape the individual if they are just allowed to do so.

“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.”[1]

Historical roles within the family.

Now let’s think about the historical roles within the family, at least as understood in the culture our society is based on (western Europe).

Father – The historical understanding of the Father is as a provider for the family.  He was the hunter, the farmer, the income provider, the manual laborer, and a role-model for the male children.  Looking at the religions that have formed to add a consistent moral basis for societies.  The father has been portrayed as the leader of the family group.  When it came time for decisions to be made the father would be the decider.  Obviously, there is a real spread in the quality of fathers, some being outstanding and others not so much.

Mother – She was the provider of life, the nourisher of the children, the support for her husband, and a provider for the family in his absence or out of necessity.  The mother was both the role model for the female children as well as the provider of most of the early training in the roles the children would grow to fill.  Often, she was the rock of morality that anchored the family unit.  Just as with fathers there will always be exceptional mothers who fulfill their roles in a way that leave others in awe.

Child – Children come into the world as empty vessels.  They know only themselves, and even than they don’t know themselves very well.  How they are to grow and become a part of the family, the community, or the society are all open questions that remain to be answered.  The first and forever most important teachers are the parents.  The child’s view of self, his/her role, his/her value, his/her nature are all derived from and expanded by their relationship with first their parents and then their extended family.  If these lessons are negative ones then the quality of their future learning will be at risk as well.  Members of the extended family may fill in gaps, or help augment the role of parents, but they are unlikely to ever completely replace the shortcomings of a poor parent. 

There is an interesting truth in our humanity.  It is impossible to make blanket statements applying universally across all individuals.  There are outstanding individuals who grow to be good parents despite a lack of strong role models.  There are also individuals who fail to grasp the lessons and examples of good role models and end up being failures in their attempts at being adults and/or parents.  But, that being said, what have we been doing to our concepts of family, and as a result what are the impacts to our society?  

 That is a question for tomorrow.

---

[1] https://www.verywellmind.com/behavioral-psychology-4157183

Two Questions.

As is usually the case I have more questions than I do answers.  I assume this is God’s way of balancing the universe since almost everyone else I know on the internet has more answers than questions.  It is a most curious thing, but observe any mass social media system and you will see far more solutions to a problem than problems themselves.  For example, what is the matter with kids today?  This question is so open-ended as to solicit a hundred different opinions, each and every single opinion captured in a single sentence and offered with complete confidence it is the right answer.

This morning, as I showered and prepared for the errands I must run, two questions came to mind and I think them worth considering.

What is the basic building block of a society?

What happens when that block is destroyed?

I am going to consider these questions today and perhaps share my opinion tomorrow.

What Happens When There Are Too Many Hashtags?

Ann Althouse had this post today, March 25, 2018, where she asks if one #movement is displacing another #movement?  For me it is an interesting question, and kind of speaks to the short attention span of modern society where everything is pushed by the media at hype-emotional levels demanding our attention right now.

The K-Y Jelly is hardly dry on the #metoo movement regarding the evils of powerful men and helpless women when all the sudden we have #marchforourlives demanding we fix the problems of kids being killed in school by a gunman using weapons that look like military guns (but really aren’t).  While we’re at it, I haven’t heard much from the #blacklivesmatter, or #bluelivesmatter groups for a while.  Have they come up with new hashtags to catch our attention?  If so, I’ve missed it.

Then, of course, we have the good old standby #movements, where people are routinely proclaiming their virtue and independence while part of a large group, for example, #notmypresident, #resist, #pussyhats, #berniebros, #I’mwithher, #Ihavevitue&youdon’t, #whatever.

The really cool thing about the hashtag movements is the #mobrule nature of them.  They start quietly, created by some small group or celebrity individual and then they seemingly grow overnight to be the essence of the #frenchrevolution, where the mobs would gather to watch as the nobility was paraded out to the guillotine to be executed.  Before too long they ran out of nobility and had to turn to the middle class as “counter-revolutionaries” just to keep the mobs quiet.

The thing about mob rule though is its disturbing tendency to get out of hand and begin to feed on its masters.  There is no thought of innocence, there is only guilt and the guilt must be avenged to appease the mob.  If, as in the French Revolution, you run out of guilty you really need to find new guilty or the mob is likely to turn on you.

For over two-hundred and thirty years we’ve thought ourselves a nation of laws, but was that true, or just an illusion to keep the mobs relatively small and easy to control?

Since at least the mid-1990’s the mass media has fed on our desire to organize as a mob and condemn the guilty bastard.  How many of us were outraged when OJ was not convicted of the murder the press had us convinced he had committed?  Yet somehow the California prosecutors could not convince a jury with the evidence they had.  Was that the point we began to dismiss this whole “we are a nation of laws” thing?

Thinking about the season we are in it is safe to assume our tendency for mob rule goes much, much, further back than the white Blazer.  Remember the story of Christ’s passion saw the Pharisees round up the mob to condemn Christ to his crucifixion when Pilot asked the crowd who should be released?  The mob cried out for Barabbas, a zealot, and criminal who had been convicted of murder.  The priests had a few plants stir up the crowd, and like our protests of today, most just go along with whoever yells the loudest.

Free Speech?

Today is March 24^th, 2018.  A notable day for me, and a day of protest for many.  But I wonder how many of the actual participants really know what they are protesting against, or protesting for?

With the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the 13 colonies embarked on their second attempt at self-governing.  It became the basis for our government on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the 9^th state to ratify it[1]. The government began to function the following March, and the first order of business for the new Congress was to create a set of amendments to limit government and address concerns about federal power.  The first ten amendments, also known as the bill of rights was ratified by the several states in 1791. 

I’ve written in the past ( here, and  here)  about the amendments but would like to think about the First Amendment again, since it is in the news these days.

There seems to be a misunderstanding among the various groups within our society about what the First Amendment is intended to do, who it is intended to protect, and how “We the People” have developed under previous assumptions. 

To begin, we refer to the First Amendment as our guarantee we have a right to have something called “free speech”, but speech is only one component the founders hoped to establish.  The first thing the Congress established was there would be no official state religion as had been the case in Europe and what had led so many of the original settlers to migrate in the first place.  In the second they set out the right of the people and the press to exchange information (ideas, opinions, and news) without the fear of government creating laws to prevent that.  Finally, it clearly lays out the right to protest government actions that the people find disagreeable.

While the idea of “free” speech was groundbreaking when it was adopted, over the past 40 or so years the left has moved to impose social restrictions on individuals for the political strength that comes with control.  With the advent of online social media offering a two-way exchange of dialogue, it is also obvious that many believe their vitriolic speech is possible without direct consequence.   In both extremes, the individuals who advocate and do these things seem to have lost their way in the role of building a free republic as established by our founders.

---

[1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-constitution-ratified

Who Cares About the National Debt?

I view myself as a fiscal conservative and believe when our debt level exceeds our ability to pay for it, or other nations lose confidence in our ability to repay -- the government will fail.  But that is not a view held by either party in our Federal Government, so why bother talking about the national debt at all?

For eight years the Republican’s complained about the Obama administrations debt spending, yet once they controlled both the legislature and executive they have done precisely as the past administration.  Over the past six months, I think they increased the national debt by $1,000,000,000,000.92, all while blaming the villainous Democrats.  Of course, the Democrats helped all this with their Trumpmania conspiracy theories that fill the news cycles.

Let’s get real.  You don’t get to govern and then complain about how those other guys are making you spend all this money.  The only question between the Democrats and the Republicans is who gets to benefit from the spending? 

In the past administration, despite all its allusions, deflections and pointless rhetoric about protecting the poorest, it was Wall Street, insurance companies, internet giants, and the bankers who made out like bandits.  Savings accounts earned next to nothing, welfare was pretty much on autopilot, and the unemployment rates slowly came down as people abandoned the workplace.

In this administration, it seems to be the military-industrial complex, the insurance companies, bankers and investment firms that will make all the money despite the allusions, deflections and pointless rhetoric about returning money to the middle class.

I will never again believe a Republican when he or she says they are concerned with the national debt.  The number is, as the Democrats have pointed out, a self-imposed value serving solely as a club to beat over the head and shoulders of your political rival.

In the immortal words of that great economist, social commentator, and philosopher Stan Lee - ‘nough said!

What is the Difference Between Protest and Political Indoctrination?

Here is some food for thought, I saw this a couple of days ago and it has been rattling around my brain as I considered it.  What is the difference between a protest demonstration and state sponsored political indoctrination?

In the 1960s African-Americans and others came together to gain for themselves the individual rights assured all Americans under the Constitution.  In the 1960s and 70s, Americans rose up to protest the US involvement in the war in Vietnam.  In the 1980’s we saw the development of public protest by both the feminists and those who oppose abortion.  The late 1980s saw the rise of protests in China as they sought more individual freedom. Those of us who were adult at the time will remember the lone protestor standing against the might of the Chinese regime as a line of tanks moved forward.

Image from NY Times - Lens

 The 1990s and this century have seen an increasing number of protests, regarding a variety of social ills.  The Right to Life protests continue, as well as protests for equality and the value of various lives/rights. But it seems increasingly many of these protests are taking on the feel not of demonstrations for increased freedom, but rather for increased control of the individual by the state.

Let’s take the latest movement to make the front pages.  The national walkout for gun control (#standforsafety) to commemorate the victims of the Parkland High School massacre.  Students nationwide were organized to walk away from their classes and assemble in protest of the problem of gun violence in schools, but who organized the movement, was it the students, or were they just the visual aids for the real leadership? 

I watched as our local School Superintendent praised the students for their humanity and then organized the county school system to support the movement.  Complete with parental permission slips for the children.  

This opened up the question for me, if the government organizes the demonstration and there is absolutely no individual risk in their protest or perhaps the risk is in not participating, then is it really a protest or is it just another field trip in their political indoctrination program?  In this movement we see its leaders arguing we must take away the rights of the individual to satisfy the desires of the few. 

That we should consider that loss of individual right is a reasonable question to address as we seek to reduce risk.  The way we should go about it is really the question. 

I am not sure I see a big difference between this current protest and the May Day celebrations of the Communist states where people are brought together annually to display the power of the state with big parades.  Speaking of parades…. Wait that’s another subject and I’ve already written about it.