phaedo2000.com Blog

The pendulum always swings too far, as the observation goes; and this pendulum? that of the ME generations.  Too much? too much of everything and therefore too much expectation of even more?

I was reading this morning that STATFOR is up and running again after being hacked; STRATFOR is a civilian (for profit) intelligence company that publishes reports on straightforward and non-political observations of events occurring in the world, especially for companies doing business in overseas markets.  So why hack into it and steal credit card numbers and emails?  Well, the obvious is as unto any other heist; but apparently this was more “ideological” and the credit card numbers were a surprise bonus, apparently (it is still under investigation).  What ideology?  They also destroyed four control computers; ideologists, after all, are big into destruction.

But that’s just a footnote to the occupy-ers of late.  Ideologists?  Maybe of the ideology of the ME generations.  Everyone has a right to a “good” job, a “nice” home – and all loans to be canceled.  Yeah, yeah, sounds like the ME-ers to me.  But then another recent study examined morals and in the process makes the picture clearer: we have no right to judgment; one person’s cultural beliefs are as good as any other’s – ANY other’s.  Really?  That’s what “they” think, they being college student responders to questions on the subject.  It’s called relativism; or whatever, as long as it benefits me.  What ever happened to responsibility or repect for other’s rights?  Ah, I’ve belabored that one before.

The problem is that some people think and reason and some people are ruled by emotion; emotion can and usually does wipe out reason.  Add that to selfishness, greed, me-ism entitlement, and lack of much knowledge and it’s not so difficult to understand.  Much of it tends to be what one might expect of children; we all did stupid things when we were children; well, most of us did.  The fact that these are not children just shows how long childhood lasts these days, I suppose, or how little incentive there is to leave it (ah, incentive, another subject I have worked to death).  Children are not expected to understand unintended consequences – or empathy for that matter.  We can ask where they come up with these ideas, and how they can stay with them for so long, and answers have been provided often and in detail; but it doesn’t seem to help, except to show that it is still sustained more by emotional immaturity than it is true ideology.  But it sure seems to be shaping our future.

I wonder where the pendulum is in its period.  Surely it will one day start swinging back the other way, won’t it; but when?

I was just thinking as I read through an Economist article about elections in Africa, and saw a picture of Hugo Chavez how ridiculous we humans are.  Politics as we practice it is truly a joke; the practitioners are all a joke.   Those who are in office seem to be the biggest joke of all, looking at the results.  When they speak?  joke.  When they make decisions?  joke.  When they strut and preen?  joke.  When they just stand there and pose for pictures?  joke.  I am really embarrassed with it all.  Yes I know the alternatives and realize they are worse, ranging as they do from anarchy to despotic monarchy, but that doesn’t make it any less a joke.

Before we can decide who “we” are perhaps we should give thought to who “we” have been.  We were a small – and weak – “country” ( and it took an effort to get to that point) comprised of mostly rural people with a diversity of ideas and beliefs.  The picture of a single nation of homogeneous thought and consistent beliefs is mostly myth.  The Constitution did not happen calmly, nor was it embraced blindly by all.  Washington once wrote to Jefferson asking how much liberty could the “people” handle.  It was admittedly an experiment, and for all intents and purposes still is; the experiment has been chaotic and emotional – and still is, even though the nature of the nation has changed dramatically from being small and rural to large, powerful, wealthy and mostly urban.  “We” don’t even agree on how that happened, because for the most part most of us really don’t know; even if we think we do, or for that matter even think about it.

Nevertheless that’s where we are.  We mouth the words that are the concepts of freedom, liberty, free-markets, property rights and individualism; but most of us see them through our own eyes in the context of our own lives, and do not agree with various interpretations.  We still have a diversity of ideas and beliefs, but with additions to the original mix they have changed and widened with the changes in the environment which is our nation.  And some of the bases for the concepts have been muddied; I would state morality as one, but that, as I said in Part I may be being modified by interpretation; but such fundamentals as honesty and responsibility must remain if that which we expect for our future is to maintain.  Without honesty and responsibility the concept of national vision that we have held cannot be sustained, and we will become what most of the rest of the world is and has always been – and might always be.

Books have been written on what that is, so we must leave it at that.  Either one understands it or doesn’t, and therefore accepts that who we were is who we still are or not; but more than that it will determine whether that is what we WANT to be, or not.  So what is it that we WANT to be?  I contend that is a difficult question for most to answer because they haven’t thought much about it beyond the hazy blur of poorly understood words and concepts, how they apply, and what they mean.  That is the question that is plaguing us and most of us are ill equipped to handle.  We are in the process of trying to answer it anyway; intellectually, emotionally, individually, collectively, and even in terms of pure survival, for some.  Change is with us because we cannot contain it, everywhere we look; we cannot contain it, but we can direct it, if we know where we want it to progress.  We don’t yet, and it will take us a period of time to do so, if we are able.  In the meantime, because we have not directed effectively in the recent past (some say ever), we are faced with a more difficult task today, and the longer we remain in flux the more difficult it will become.  We are facing challenging choices and no matter how we deal with them they will be painful, and we do not like pain and will resist it, individually and collectively.

I think about it a lot, and worry; I think we all should, but not with paranoia – or even resignedly.  We have the strength within us as a nation to deal with it; but it will test us mightily to do so, and how we face the test will determine the results.  Time is running short and the ultimate pain is growing, but perhaps that will provide us with the incentive we need to make the difficult choices.  Ultimately we WILL come out of it, but the view at the other side is not yet clear.

I keep seeing things about us that disquiet me, in one form or another.  We are changing; but then we have always been changing.  Are there causes or is it just the way humans evolve?  Some human offshoots of the evolution tree are extinct, did you know that?  But that’s another subject.

Let me illuminate some of the changes I think I see.

The thirst for fame, even momentary, seems to be an increasingly driving factor.  Three quarters of our population (statistically) are now members of face book (but then 60% of families own dogs – what does that tell us?).  And that seems to be driving some things.  For example the new “game” in town in for small gangs of people to look for someone to terrorise.  One confronts a properly non-threatening target and begins punching him or her.  If he falls to the ground the rest kick him and leave.  If he resists the entire group starts punching him until he falls and then they kick him.  Several of the group have cameras, and they are often girls, who film (usually video) the event – and post it on Facebook where they (the videos), I am assured, have become quite popular in terms of “hits.”  Getting attention on Facebook is IMPORTANT.

Which leads to communication technology, headed by personal access communication.  It seems to dominate our waking hours.  That’s beyond computers and television; it is personal hand held machines that allow us to talk to anyone anywhere any time, and apparently they are very active little devices.

We profess to be politically correct but can agree on very little, and have less interest in discussing things about which we disagree.  This leads to put-down criticism (whether we understand why or not) and develops very firm opinions of very superficial subjects about which we seem to love to pontificate – or argue (more like railing that arguing actually).  Often they include the word hate, which we also profess to abhor.

Relativism is rampant too, if one can believe those that delve into such things.  It’s less anything goes, than no one has the right to question someone else’s positions on morality; there is no right and wrong per se.  You notice inconsistencies here?  No wonder our young and other limited knowledge population are confused.

This extends, as I have said, to politics.  But look at how we have skewed that.  The most important thing in politics today is money; money to buy ads to propagandize the voting public (and those that don’t vote as well).  The upshot seems to be the one with the most money, tends to win.  Oh, and it is alleged that congressmen allocate 2 days per week to do nothing but talk to constituents; who are trying to convince them of something, ususally, I suspect, to give them something – not bribes, but something they think we should have that benefits them.  And at the same time we have concluded that all politicians are corrupt, without really defining what we mean by that word.

Sports and entertainment absolutely dominate the thinking of a major portion or our population, and we are desperate to know what they are thinking, what they are doing, what they expect to do and any other tiny element of their lives that might titilate us.  Including where they live and where they go: pure voyeurism, but especially where they live.  We adore big houses in exotic places.  You might have noticed that we particularly like to beat up on them: movie actors in uncompromising situations, athletes screwing up, deliberate mayhem (that we seem to love).  We adore violence – vicariously, of course (on a personal level we can’t even distinguish between pain and discomfort – and take pills for all of it).

Automobile traffic is bad and will get much worse, but much of the problem is caused by drivers that are unconcerned with laws, especially speed limit laws, but also following too close, cutting in and out of traffic; we all know all about that.  Has it always been so?  Well, there hasn’t been the volume, or the power of vehicles, or the restricted roadways due to volume.  And we seem to be attracted to violence there too – NASCAR?  Isn’t the violence there an important attraction?

And on top of all this our law enforcement minions are highly restricted since anything they do is criticized and attacked.  Law enforcement is the enemy, and the culprit if anything happens that effects us in a negative way.  But teachers are similarly restricted with the same result.  And the perpetrators?  Drivers?  Burglers?  Students?  It’s not their fault; it’s “our” fault.  And speaking of students, has anyone noticed the blatant lack of motivation demonstrated by many of them, and their rejection of rules intended to support the process?

It seems to me there are common threads among all this, and I know that’s not all of it, just what came to my mind as I rattled it off.  I think there is a pattern here, but then others may see other than what I see.  The importance of it is not to sit and crticize, or even feel sorry for ourselves and moan a lot.  It is to determine how we are to deal with it.  Things are changing and we seem (my view) not to be dealing with them well; so what should we be doing?  The approaches that seem to be developing are not very productive; where do we go from here?  This, after all, is who we seem to be and what we will be living with; or isn’t it?  Who are we?

Wow, talk about an outmoded concept: moderation in all things – a joke perhaps?

Well, look at the problems we seem to be facing: financial, social, cultural, international; what else is there?  Are they not virtually all the result of lack of moderation?  Why can’t we just all work together, in moderation?  I asked that in the last blog; answer is the same, but lack of moderation surely plays a role.  Well, doesn’t it?

How about the sit-ins?  ahh, occupies, that’s it - they don’t want us to use that word any more.  How about politics?  Sex?  Fashions?  Sports?  Spending?  Entertainment?  We are no longer a people of moderation.  In fact we mock moderation.  Take your pick, left radical or right radical (politics) but in all else moderation is just plain boring.  We HATE moderation!  Or so it would seem.

Why?  Frankly I don’t know.  I guess it’s because our young have been brought up with so much individual expression and self-esteem they have lost the ability to be anything but themselves, and therefore totally unrestrained; anything goes?  Maybe it’s because moderation is the opposite of excitement and therefore un-cool.  Drinking? hey let’s just get sloshy drunk.  Marriage and families? nah, too restricting.  Credit cards?  ohhhh yeah.  Name one thing that is not (at least publicly) pushed to excess.

So why not politics?  Politics is a reflection of what we are.  Moderate?  Good lord don’t dare call us that; moderate is wishy-washy.  Even stupid.  Un-American.  How can one be FREE and still be a moderate?  Except with political correctness, that is; that’s different…or maybe just a different kind of radical?  Might be.

Moderation in all things is SO old fashioned, so stick in the mud, so un-cool, and cool is what’s happenin’.

Maybe it will take going broke to get back to moderation in all things, maybe.  And we’re working on that.  Is it possible, just possible that the two are related in some way?  Naaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh.

We really do gravitate towards defining our differences; of course we do so because we are drawn to those like us, and the differences are so easy to see and exploit.  But in the process we are prone to oversimplifying: there are two kinds of people in the world, smart and dumb, attractive and ugly?  etcetera.  So I have my own dichotomy to offer: those that think they know it all and those who are willing to be led (at least not able to resist it); or, if you prefer, the clever and the gullible.

Interestingly, many seem to have seen a similar division, oversimplified though it is.  The free market system is based on it, and so is our basic form of government.  The government system in particular; with separation of powers and checks and balances, both on the governing end and on the voting end.  For a time I got to thinking that due to voter ignorance we would be better off with an elite system of leadership; until I realized that “the elite” had the same ignorance/selfishness problem that all the rest of us have, and the only hope is to make it so that no one can easily grab all the marbles and dictate to the rest of us.  Our world leadership, after all, on examination is not all that swift.

Eisenhower, on leaving office, warned of the military/industrial complex; he was ahead of his time.  How about what has subsequently developed, the government/industrial (revolving door) complex?  Or perhaps the government/financial complex?  In any event that seems to be the clever side.  Television has pretty well taken care of the sheeple side.  Why can’t we all just work together for the common good?  Yeah, right; because we cannot agree on what the common good is.  That, after all is mainly what dominates the current national differences: share it or fight over it; neither, of course works, because we can’t agree on a sharing formula and we know we have to adjudicate the fights or destroy each other.

So how do we find common ground?  With great difficulty; it really is a refereed contest, where the rules change constantly.  Our goal?  The best, it seems, we can hope for is to keep one faction from gaining enough power to impose their demands on the rest of us; here it is (gasp): compromise.  Oh no, COMPROMISE?  how awful.  And it really is, since no one is ever happy with it; but what are the alternatives?  As Winston Churchill has been quoted as saying: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those others that have been tried.”  And there it is, it’s all we have and we’d best make the most of what we have, compromise the differences, and somehow live with the oh so messy results.