Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Shaun and I

(JM) My dear friend,
The notion that only Democrats and satirists are attacked is, I feel, incongruous and farcical. I suppose it depends on who the attacker is. If it is the media, then I would say that the Republicans take it on the chin ten-fold over the Democrats despite who holds office (see Trent Lott). Also, look at the stark contrast of how Bush was, and still is being treated for attacking Iraq, versus Clinton when he did it in 1998 using the WMD excuse as well. If we are talking about political science book writers, then I would have to admit that the tide is certainly turning. Conservative book writers are coming out in droves critically analyzing liberal leaders and their policies.

There is a substantial difference; however, which exists between said liberals and conservatives, and it is this: liberal writers, such as Al Franken, are vitriolic, acerbic, deceitful, and emotionally driven in their personal attacks. Conservative writers appeal to me because they are driven cerebrally and use facts, stats, logic, and reasoning in their critical analyses. You are correct when you state that this is the way of things and no one really likes it, especially the common folk. We all must decide which side we wish to place ourselves on in this debacle because it reflects upon us. I am very comfortable where I am.

With all of the respect and esteem of friendship,
JM



(Shaun) How come everyone that disagrees with your Republican heroes is always labeled the "liberal bias" whatever? While I understand your sense of frustration that you and your right-wing fellows feel of always being picked on, what about addressing the topics of Bush and Chaney's (sic) oil connections and their takeover of Iraq, which, didn't this all start over getting Bin-Laden? Then, because we couldn't find him, our focus shifted to Saddam and getting rid of weapons (of which we still haven't found any) then to "freeing" the people of Iraq, who from what I have read and heard don't really want us there in the first place. I thought Imperialism went out a long time ago.

I could be wrong, but your die-hard Republican friends seem to complain a lot of being picked on and satirized, but feel that's it's okay to spend billions of our tax dollars on destroying then rebuilding a country that didn't ask for the United States Democracy way of life. I may not want to live there myself, but is it right for the US to force it's views and policies on other countries? Especially when other world powers are not in agreeance (sic)? If we truly want a Global Economy, which should in turn be beneficial for all countries, especially the US, I'm pretty sure just taking over other countries is not the way to do it. By acting like the United States of the World, we just reinforce the negative stereotype that other countries see us as instead of being a team player for the benefit of all society, not just rich republicans.. Why don't we look at the broader issues here instead of worrying whether someone got interviewed fairly or satirized in a book.

(JM) I was impressed with the passion that you responded with. I have many points to make, but cannot delve very deeply right now, but will once I return (I have a 12 hour shift Wed.). First, I am uncomfortable with the allegiance you place me in with the Republicans. True, I am a conservative in political philosophy, but take great pains not to be a blind ideologue devoted to a single party and every thing that it stands for. There are differences that I have with the Republican party such as amnesty for illegal immigrants, pushing religion in public schools and other federal and state institutions, Bush's allocation of taxpayer dollars to religious institutions under the guise of charity, and I could go on. So referring to my "Republican heroes" is misleading. I favor conservative writers and thinkers and also the few conservative Democrats that exist. I strongly disfavor liberal philosophy, and honestly see it as harmful. Incidentally, the charge that I see anyone who disagrees with my political philosophy as biased is silly. Have you read or heard the Bill O'Reilly interview on NPR? You really ought to. If that does not convince you that there is a liberal bias in the media, then nothing ever will. NPR is not an organization that competes in the marketplace like so many radio talk shows do. They are largely funded by you, me, and other taxpayers, and they have a bias! We are funding propaganda! This should ruffle the feathers of everyone, even leftists.

Now, you make several points about the Iraqi war that I hear over and over from the liberal leaders in our country, and from many of my friends who are mostly liberal (believe it or not!). Bush did it for the oil. The WMD case was a lie. The U.S. is imperialistic and a bully. The Iraqi people do not want us there. These arguments can be rebuked only if those who hold them are willing to hear the other side (i.e., exposing oneself to a variety of media outlets including Fox News). A general truth that I have come to discover is that (and this is generally speaking) liberals do not wish to hear the other side, presumably because it offends their delicate sensibilities, and thus only speak to one another, thereby reinforcing a mutually held belief. I personally prefer to discuss, civilly of course, issues with those holding opposing beliefs because the goal is truth. Truth cannot be found by talking to like-minded individuals only. Therefore, whenever I see someone I know make a gruesome facial contortion at the mere mention of Rush Limbaugh's name (for example), then I know that they are completely closed off and hindered in their pursuit of verity. If Rush, or whomever, is a nutcase, then why not rebuke his arguments logically and rationally? Why call him dirty names like a child? The answer, apparently, is that "it is not worth the effort and it offends me anyway". I could factually and logically demolish Al Franken in this manner quite easily.

One other problem that I notice commonly in my personal interactions with people who lean toward the left, and I do not mean to be insulting, is that they are ignorant of the topics many times. They have very strong convictions on issues about which they know very little. Here emotion forms and rules their held opinions, and not thought or education. That may sound extremely condescending, but I believe it to be true for the most part. For instance, I have heard that up to 70% of the Iraqi people not only are glad that we are there, but do not want us to leave right now. This came out a couple of weeks ago, I believe. Of course, some media outlets will not display certain news, and that is where media bias comes in- an issue that I hold on the highest level of importance. War is a crucial issue, of course, but are we to neglect other important issues? How taxpayer dollars are spent is a concern not only regarding the war.

Exposing media bias plainly, for all who care to examine the evidence, is not an important thing to do? This neglect will allow the perpetrators to get away with more shenanigans. Now, if you believe that the Iraqi people are not happy to be rid of Hussein, and that we are pushing our democratic way of life on a people who do not want it and are "taking over" other countries, then there really is nothing more that I can say. I will answer your question, however, as to whether or not the U.S. ought to "force its views and policies on other countries" despite not having the okay from many nations, although many did give it as well. If a ruthless dictator (and everyone agrees on that) is killing his own people by the droves as well as funding terrorist organizations, and his sons are raping the local school girls by the dozens, etc., etc., then I certainly believe that removing them by force and setting up a democracy or, preferably a republic, is the right thing to do. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 using the same arguments that Bush did. Where was the media then? Many of my friends had no idea that this even happened until I told them! Anyone who thinks that WMDs do not exist, even though Clinton himself still believes it, ought to take a sip out of the Euphrates River (a stolen joke).

Incidentally, if I distorted a picture of your face and repeatedly called you a pathological LIAR, would you think I was being funny and satirical? If you were a liar, then I would do it in a serious manner, not as a joke. There is something of a culture war going on in this country right now that deserves our attention and inspection. Lastly, the phrase "rich Republicans" again demonstrates a deeply ingrained erroneous belief. The four richest Senators in Congress right now are all Democrats (just heard it today- you won't hear that on CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC). I have attached an article from my column writing days that addresses common misnomers if you care to peruse it, among others.

I fear that my response will stir up heated passions within you and cause deep resentment toward me. I hope this will not be the case. We ought to be willing to respectfully disagree on topics, and not evade discussing them but rather embrace an exchange of ideas that will, in the long run, benefit us both. You will forever be my dearest friend, an I will always have the deepest regards of friendship toward you.

yours truly,
JM


(JM) On another topic, an elderly woman told me the other day, as I was ringing up her prescription, that she gets many of her meds from Canada and wished that our govt. would help senior citizens pay for their meds (many of my customers admit that they receive their meds from Canada-I am opposed for a few reasons). I then asked her if she was in favor of socialized medicine. “No!, No!” she replied, “I just wish the govt. would give us an allowance to purchase our medications.” I bit my tongue. These are the same sort of people who exclaim, “it won’t cost the taxpayers at all, the government will pay for it.” It is lamentable how many have no idea how the basic functions of our systems work, whether it is taxes, government, legal, insurance, or what have you.

I recently got a call from a friend of mine who loves to engage me on various topics (I do not transition well, in case you haven’t noticed). This time it was the Iraqi conflict. She was angry with Bush, feels the war was unjustified, and made many of the points that you presented to me earlier, and others before then. I mentioned a few things that I felt she may have been unaware of such as the 180 degree turnaround of Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite Muslim cleric, who not so long ago was spewing venom at the U.S. and is now pro-U.S. and anti-Saddam (this was a News-Press article I read in the 11/10 edition). He said that “the Iraqi people love and intend no harm to you (the U.S. and its troops),” and that he hoped Saddam would burn in hell. The attacks that we all hear so much about are apparently caused by a minority group of Sunni Muslims. I then mentioned the 10/14 article, which I had told you about, where a Gallup poll showed that 71% of Baghdad residents want U.S. troops to stay longer. I also spoke of the recent news that Bush has sped up the training of the Iraqi army and police (the third time now), as well as the transfer of power to the Iraqi government (from 3 years now to 18 months). Rumsfeld himself said that the answer is more Iraqi troops not U.S. troops.

She then expressed her indignation at the loss of life over there (400 troops and counting). The question I posed to her was, “What price are we willing to pay for freedom since freedom does not come for free?” Each loss is tragic, of course, as it is in every war. If our enemies know that we have not the stomach for casualties, then we are very vulnerable, are we not? We pulled out of Vietnam for the same reason (where we had 12 to 1 casualties vs. Iraq), among others, and left the Southern Vietnamese to fend for themselves. Then what happened? The North invaded and slaughtered them. If we pull out now, then not only will the Iraqi people pay a heavy toll, but no country will ever trust us to watch their back ever again. I’ll bet we lose more people in a single week due to gang wars in L.A. and elsewhere. There is more chaos in the streets of this country every time the L.A. Lakers win the NBA Championship or Michigan wins a college football game. Our celebrations wreak more havoc than these guerillas do.

She then said that the war was unjustified in the first place and that Bush seemed to have no definitive plan for ending it. I told her that the example that the U.S. presents to the world is one worthy of emulation as is evidenced by the fact that so many people from other lands go to such extremes to come to our shores. Free democratic elections, as well as many other aspects of our form of government, are things that ought to be shared with and spread to other countries, especially monarchial ones. After all, how would anyone ever know that the Iraqi’s, or any other people under despotic rule, desire liberation vis-a-vis a new form of government when they are executed for merely voicing this opinion? As far as this demand for a definitive plan is concerned, I posed a question to her regarding the nonexistence of a definitive plan for the eventual ending to the War on Drugs or War on Crime, for example. There will never be an end to the spending of taxpayer dollars for these endeavors, as well as dozens of others, yet no demand for an end to them reverberates in the media.

Well, you can plainly see how many of my friends (mostly from St. Louis) and I love to engage one another, and I feel that this is key. As long as it’s civil and thoughtful, then it sharpens us all and provides many various viewpoints and knowledge for all who are involved. Some are hesitant to participate because they are weary of confrontation, but I try to assure them that this is merely an exchange of ideas between educated adults and to avoid it due to hyper-sensibilities would be foolish. These are issues that affect us all. To avoid them is to avoid reality and whoever partakes in that endeavor loses all respect. To quote Elie Wiesel, “There is one right I would not grant anyone and that is the right to be indifferent.” How about Mary Poole, “To repeat what others have said, requires education, to challenge it, requires brains.”? Or, better yet, Thomas Macaulay, “Men (and women) are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely.” By the end of the talk, she thanked me for my input and said she’d collate it.

Well, I will free you now. “Upon the whole, I think this is enough for one letter. If I am not weary of writing, I am sure you must be of reading such incoherent rattle. I will not persecute you so severely in the future, if I can help it; and I now salute you with unchanged affections and respect.”
your friend,
JM

(JM) I must begin by apologizing for flooding your email account with so many messages. I know that the school year is coming near the end and you must be extremely busy. The attachments are yours to peruse at your leisure. Please, feel free to send me any that you deem worthy of inspection. I crave various points of view, and greatly value your input and remarks (I really do).

What are the three of you doing next weekend? I may actually have time to relax and pay a visit. It seems I have been working overtime almost every week lately; this week another 12 hours OT. The extra cash is an incentive, but Uncle Sam takes an entire third of it. I think the government ought to set up a web site which lists every single purchase made so that we, the taxpayers, can see for ourselves precisely what we are getting for our money. This will also prevent the loss of a trillion dollars that no one could account for earlier this year, and still cannot account for. It irks me to think that our money is spent with reckless abandon, and no regard for frugality. Again, enough on this subject.

Well, time to get ready for work. I'll give you a call if it slows down. We are in the middle of snowbird season right now, and it is often a bit busy.
your friend,
JM

(Shaun) While I can see the point of this book, and may agree with some of the conjectures proposed, these views seem to be one-sided and with an agenda attached to them. Not all schools are like the ones cited. Not all heterogeneous grouping is bad. (We had it when we were in middle school. I personally do not wish to have this grouping, but to say it is completely bad is erroneous.) Plus, why is it always the schools fault? Where does society, namely parents, come in? Why have we been raising a generation of "give it to me, for free, now?" Certainly there some faults with public education. How can one hope to educate the masses and "leave no child behind" when schools are just too big to handle the growing inadequacy amongst the current generation? This will be the first generation to do worse than their parents. Is this public education's fault? Or are there larger societal issues that must be faced first? There is no easy answer, I just get my feathers ruffled when people try to blame school's for everything. What has happened to personal responsibility?

(JM) I believe it is both. I believe that parenting is the number one problem in this country right now, and that it is responsible for a great many of our ills. You hit the nail on the head when you say that personable responsibility is on the wane. However, I also see the public education system as a debacle that is seemingly beyond repair and recovery, and I'll probably not grieve upon its demise. The downfall could probably be traced to many things, but my opinion is that it is primarily when discipline was taken out of the schools (i.e. forbidding paddling, flunking, and other forms of punishment and discipline- ostensibly for the purpose of protecting kids' fragile feelings and precarious confidence). We coddle kids to the point where their skin is translucent beyond belief, and can basically tell a teacher to go fuck them self to their face without any fear of punishment, or at least substantial punishment. I recoil in horror when my father tells me stories from his days at Suncoast Elementary.

Look at who wins the national spelling bees every year- the home-schooled kids. Kim and I are thinking of putting Pearl and Lily into a charter school rather than the public school that Pearl is presently in (Gateway). I would appreciate your opinions and input in this matter. Pearl tells me that she cannot learn a thing because the kids misbehave so much. Apparently the teacher writes the word "RECESS" on the board and erases a letter each time the class gets out of hand; they seldom have recess. This method seems ineffectual and foolish to me. Kids ought to be singled out for their misbehavior. That is the best way to dissuade them. Of course, many sensitiviosos wince at that very idea. They insist that we have to protect kids' self-esteem, etc.

Well, I am running a little long on this rant. I really have to begin closing up now.
yours truly,
JM

(Shaun) Okay, see, part of this is crap. I know that doesn't sound incredibly intelligent, but this Dan Lips obviously has an agenda at hand. I agree; I am sure money is wasted in public schools. We're human, how could it not be? But to encourage less spending is ludicrous. I might feel different if the lottery money actually went to schools. The fact is that with the creation of the Florida Lottery, spending was cut. The money from the lottery replaces money from other sources of funding. It's not additional money, it's the same that has always been there, with one exception: We are needing more schools at all elementary, middle, and high school levels; the schools we do have are getting larger and larger which results in their increased needs; and our public school populations are changing at an exceedingly fast rate, rendering comparisons to "days of old" moot. Strapping schools and teachers down to every last cent is not an encouraging thought for those involved, especially when compared to other professions who earn considerably more.

Yes, I know, I know, we chose our profession and knew the pay was small in comparison, however, to "fight the good fight" truly and honestly for all students is an undertaking that need not be stressed by an already stressed budget. I know I stand from I a biased point-of-view, however, like my dad always said, "You can't do the job if you don't have the tools." I can tell you honestly that most public schools do not have all the proper tools at their disposal to do a proper job of educating today's youth. They are trying, but failing short because they have to "think and spend creatively" which results in thinking, "Hmm, what can we cut out of education so we can meet this year's budget," which by the way is usually less from the previous year.

And then! School Choice is nonsense. If your neighborhood is that bad, then do something about it and fix it. Just because your conditions are not the same as someone else's, why should you cost the district - I think it was over two million dollars - in additional busing? You shouldn't. I believe in personal responsibility and that concept seems to be missing from today's reality. I feel bad for those students that have to go to labeled "bad or failing" schools. Isn't that a great motivational term for those students already behind and without as many privileges? You're already stupid and you're going to go to this bad and stupid school, but you should come out ready to be a positive and productive citizen, perhaps even go to college. It just isn't going to happen for an overwhelming majority. A great deal of these students do not see a way out of their current conditions and going to a labeled good and passing school is not going to shed some miraculous light on the subject for them.

The problem is in society. We need a massive restructuring of what is important in this country to bring about a change for the better for all citizens. This would require people to be responsible for their own actions and earn those privileges handed to those who have worked hard for them before them. If you choose not to, then you should not expect that someone else is going to do it for you. I hear this everyday, and it's sad. No motivation, no self-worth, no concept that they are and should be held accountable for their actions. I think we should help people out, but there comes a point where the individual steps in and takes possession of their life.

But to quote Mr. Miller "...but I rant." So I will stop here. Thanks for the thought-provoking piece. It felt good to write it down. Have a great night.
Shaun

(Shaun) I have only been in this district a short time and from what I have seen, school choice is a bunch of *&$%. I have not seen how it benefits anybody except bureaucrats in that it makes it look like they actually want to help out schools. Instead of always blaming and trying to "fix" the public school system why don't we work on helping parents be Parents and people being decent and responsible citizens. Can public schools help make this happen? Sure they can. Is change needed in public schools? Of course, change is almost always beneficial. But radical swings of the pendulum in the shape of programs forcing schools this way and that does nothing but stress-out those in already working hard in the field of education. Schools can't fix society without help on the homefront.

(JM) You know, my father gets a monthly journal called Education Reporter, which he gives to me after he’s finished with it. There is some really interesting stuff going on out there in the world of education. The Minnesota Virtual Academy, which began in Nov. 2002, provides online learning programs for home-schooled kids. Apparently it has the teachers unions up there in an uproar. In St. Louis, where I went to Rx school, Vashon High, after spending $40 million, is an unmitigated failure. There are rampant fights, habitual absenteeism, violence against teachers & staff, etc. Yet the outcry for more funds rages on. Apparently, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is a pretty reliable think tank that researches and studies these issues. According to them, less than half of U.S. public high school grads are ready for college! Wow. Now parents in Nashville must fill out permission slips in order for their kids to be placed on the honor roll. It seems the parents of the dumb, sorry- cerebrally challenged, kids have been complaining. A new study by the American Enterprise Institute concluded that federal spending on education under Tile I has failed to produce any significant increase in test scores. A Florida teacher’s union boss is headed to prison for charging $650,00 in luxuries to union accounts. Nice! These are only a few of the stories that I found captivating. What's new on your end?

Anyway, feel free to stop by the store here sometime when you guys are in town, and tell your parents that they can get their scripts filled here (if they have any). I’ll take good care of them, and get their rxs filled in about 10 minutes. Kim used to tell me that Walgreen had a wait time usually of an hour or two. Incidentally, she has crossed over and has just begun working for Publix now. She’ll be an assistant mgr., like me, but in Naples. It’s quite a drive, but a blessing when one considers the grunts she had to put up with at the Lehigh Walgreen. Anyway, gotta run. Let’s get together!

JM
P.S. I’m sorry I don’t call. I’m just not a fan of the phone…never was really.

Chilling for thee, but not for me
by Jonah Goldberg was sent to Shaun February 11, 2005



(Shaun) This is what happens when we have too many rights and freedoms. We no longer have anything to work for, no common good, so we attack each other. It's really rather ridiculous, but it will only get worse before it gets better. Every (for lack of a better word) stupid attack on free-thought like this brings us ever closer to a Brave New World. If you haven't read the book, do so. I'm not saying that our generation will necessarily see that world come to fruition, but it will happen. Our society does not want to be free and equal. If we were, what would we have to fight over? Or maybe that's the point.

(JM) Well, my friend, you were the only one who responded to me, and I’m glad that you did. As you read this you may ask what have you gotten yourself into, but my hope is that you relish the merit of the discussion instead. My point was to see if anyone, many of whom I emailed being college professors and friends of mine, could give me any sort of sensible explanation or argument as to why this massive discrepancy exists between these two men (Larry Summers and Ward Churchill) and the way that they are treated, not only by their peers, but by others as well. Any intellectually honest person has to wonder why one man is castigated, and the other glorified, especially when the glorified one said things of a much more vile and disturbing nature. In any case, as in most cases, I received no cogent explanation; like Mr. Goldberg said in his article, “…some subjects are simply taboo even among serious scholars.”

It does seem that there is a lack of, and even a positive defiance to, engaging in civil discourse and intellectual debate, and this trend continues to worsen. This is more odd when concerning educators and academics. Have you encountered this intellectual snobbery in your daily discourses? Incidentally, did you ever get a chance to listen to that Adams/Jefferson CD that I made for you? There were two friends who had considerable differences of opinion on political, and other matters, but who could always maintain their respect for one another and their friendship while debating issues, especially in their retirement years. True, they did not talk for 12 years after Adams lost the presidency, but this was due to the poor judgment of Jefferson. Anyway, I digress! I don’t mean to go on and on, but I long for someone to correspond with and to engage me in stimulating conversation.

I have only a few questions for you, mainly for clarification. What constitutes an attack? It’s just that I hear that word used so often that I wonder if it is not used too loosely at times. I have been accused of “attacking” when all I was doing, in my mind anyway, was challenging another’s assumptions, holding them accountable for something they said, responding to a challenge, or merely disagreeing with them. Also, to whom were you referring? - the speech of these two professors, or those who spoke out against them?

It could be argued that these two men are being unfairly treated solely for exercising their freedom of speech, but does this mean that they should be free from the consequences of their speech? Like you said, we have too much freedom and too many rights in this country, and I agree with you. You can’t say “bomb” on a plane, or even joke about one. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. You can use hate speech for the purpose of provoking violence. You can’t use vulgarity in public, technically. Now, Churchill said some pretty preposterous and offensive things. Is he free to do so? Well, it depends, doesn’t it? Can he teach this stuff in his classroom and not expect to be fired? Can any of us tell our boss or customers to “f--- off”, and expect to be protected from losing our jobs? Can any of us use a racial slur and not be reprimanded for doing so? Of course not, and neither should he. What do you think about some of the things he said? What about Summers?

I was admittedly surprised by your first sentence, and isn’t this one of the main points of Huxley’s book? – that one day our freedoms will be dissolved for the sake of social harmony, for the good of society, for a utopian “World State”? - one that makes present day totalitarian states look democratic. This book, it seems to me, is an approbation of concepts such as: less government, republicanism, agrarianism, family unity and values, childhood innocence, reasoned analysis and debate, the study of history, Christian values, the sanctity of marriage, etc.; and a reprobation of class warfare, promiscuity, elicit drug use and addiction, welfare, world unity, scare tactics, the Village philosophy, censorship, conformity, etc. Not that I agree wholeheartedly with what Huxley condemns or condones, but I am sure that you are aware of which way I lean.

According to 1984 we were supposed to all be governed by Big Brother, and the power of the state was going to dominate the lives of individuals through cultural conditioning. I admit that I am skeptical of alarmist conspiracy theories. It is the same impulse that drives Jehovah Witnesses to unrelentingly proclaim the second coming as being ‘right around the corner’. I think of these people as Mel Gibson’s character in Conspiracy Theory. Your reference to Huxley’s book also makes me wonder what your opinion on stem cell research is.

I am intrigued and somewhat perplexed by your notion that “our society does not want to be free and equal.” Please feel free to explain further so that I may better understand what you mean. The race pimps, as Bill Cosby refers to them, in this country do come to mind. These people, while portraying themselves as arbiters of racial equality and freedom, do all they can to fester the fires of hatred and intolerance. Why? – self-interest. What would they do if racism ceased to exist (an impossibility in my opinion)? They’d be powerless, and would have to actually work for an honest living, rather than off of the hatred of their supporters. I would agree with you in this regard. Also, I am not sure we all ought to be free and equal; an equally vexing statement perhaps.

Anyway, I have gone on too long! I apologize for this imposition. I do look forward to hearing what you think, however.
Till then, your friend,
JM

No comments: