The more things change

It’s easy to get caught up in the moment and lose perspective amidst all of the contemporary unrest, tumult, and the ebbs and flows of global societal pressures. I am often reminded of this when listening to a discussion or debate that includes someone who has knowledge of the historical context of the topic at hand. What comes out more often than not is that we aren’t living in extraordinary times as much as we would like to think.

History demonstrates time and time again that there have always been periods in time that test the human condition in various ways and in different parts of the world. At any given time there is peace and prosperity in some parts of the world and war and famine in other parts of the world simultaneously. The high levels of rancor, partisanship, acrimony, and “unpatriotic” speech currently taking place in our own hallowed halls of government, media, academia, and the public square is nothing new. Since our historical point of reference begins from the date of our birth it’s easy to think that [whatever] has never been this bad, when in fact [whatever] may have been worse 10 or 100 years before.

In the macro view of world history we’re not all that special, contrary to the narcissistic micro world view of the elites and liberals (is there a difference?) in the media, Hollywood, government, and academia.

Please keep our future to yourself

The recent chaos in Lebanon caused by disgruntled college students reminded me again of a phenomenon that I (obviously) don’t comprehend:

Why are the protests, opinions, and temper tantrums of college students given such weight in the realm of public dialogue? Why should we care what they think? Seriously. I know the old adage (are there ever any “new” adages?) - it’s because “they are our future”, but why should we give such vaunted and unearned credence to a group of people who typically have a limited and volatile knowledge of the world outside them? Don’t get me started on the “tolerance” of college students of alternate points of view. Intellectual diversity on today’s college campuses is almost non-existent.

Let me try to explain my point.

Ask any 10 year old about man’s contribution to global warming. What answer would you expect? What you’ll get is only what his or her teacher taught, right or wrong, disputed or undisputed. I would guess that the teacher would present (indoctrinate?) from a singular point of view and neglect (or gloss over) contrary points of view. If you offer contradictory theories to this 10 year old as a basis for debate, he or she will stare at you like a deer caught in your intellectual headlights.

Now step in your time machine and fast forward to college.

Besides a few years, hundreds of hours of television and video games, alcoholic beverages, and a little nookie here and there, how much do think has really changed? College students are still taught in an isolated environment by professors who are also isolated from the rest of society because they never really **left** the academic world. Concepts are presented in a perfect, **theoretical** framework, not as proven real world application.

So when the college students protest against [take your pick], what is the foundation of their argument based upon? Generally it’s the conflict of the theory taught versus the real world discredited or failed application of said theory. For example, communism/socialism works great in theory, but fails in practice because the natural human yearning for freedom, among many other **non-controllable** human traits conflict with the fundamental tenants of those philosophies. So when students protest the “evils” of capitalism, their basis of opinion comes from the utopian theory of socialism provided from their professors, not long term successful examples of socialism.

Obviously I’m limiting my diatribe to social and political issues, which are more emotional and theoretical by nature. When’s the last time you observed an angry horde of engineering students out in the streets breaking windows and setting fire to cars protesting Ohm’s law?

I don’t know about you, but I remember my views changing quite a bit from my school days to today, some more than others. I’d be embarrassed today to stand proudly upon the hilltop and spew most of the same opinions I had back then, as I suspect most of you would be as well - which brings me back to my original query...

Thank you may I have another

Boy, I'm glad I don't have children. Here's a prime example of reason #302 as to why:

The California legislature is considering enacting a law that forbids parents (or anyone for that matter) to "beat" a child 3 years old or younger. Now, who could be against something like that? Me for one and according to the polls (if you can trust them) a majority of Californians as well. Obviously one should never "beat" a child, but as the saying goes, the devil's in the details, and if I could paraphrase a recent former President (who never lied), it all depends on what your definition of "beat" is. That's the kicker. Per the author of the bill, spanking is synonymous with whacking your child repeatedly on the head with a baseball bat.

What about the emotional "beating" caused by a "time out" or the irreversible damage to the child's self esteem caused by simply telling the child "No"? I'm sure the State can fabricate some touchy-feely, self-proclaimed children's welfare "advocate", "activist", or "expert" to claim that, too. Think about all of the harm caused by you, your parents, your grandparents, and so on over the course of human (patriarchal) history? No wonder we all can't live together in utopian peace and harmony (on a perfectly temperature-stable, pollution-free planet). Imagine the possibilities if we just stop "beating" our children! Cry for the children! Help, Grandma Pelosi, please help us before it's too late!

Wait - here comes the government nanny to the rescue to save your children from your evil and non-government approved parenting methods! I can foresee sometime in the future that when a child is born (if sanctioned) that it is immediately handed over to the future equivalent of Hillary Clinton's "village" to be raised and indoctrinated in accordance to the wishes of the State.

Don't laugh, it's already happening. Little by little (which is key), the State is dictating to you how to raise your children, what is (and what is not) taught to your children, what to (and not to) think and say (political correctness) - shall I continue? If you look hard enough around you it's as plain as day.

Cast ye the first stone

I must have missed the official memo from our new congressional leaders about the revised requirements concerning political discourse and the “free” exchange in the arena of ideas. My silence as of late has been due to this very dictum now promulgating throughout the chattering classes, talking heads, and progressive elites. That being:

One doesn’t opine, confer, disagree, challenge, or even discuss matters contrary to positions held by the Democratic majority, mainstream media, or academia unless one has demonstrative proof of experience relating to said matter or is a member of the appropriate aggrieved group. Even if such proof is offered, its validity and acceptance is still at the discretion of the previously named arbiters of distinction, and their final (and likely) disapproval can not be challenged.

This of course, ONLY applies to conservatives.

Translation => Since I am:

white, I am forbidden to have an opinion concerning another race;
male, I am forbidden to have an opinion concerning women;
childless, I am forbidden to have an opinion concerning children;
have not served in the military, I am forbidden to have an opinion concerning the Iraq war;
conservative, I am forbidden to have an opinion concerning anything;

Seeing a pattern develop?

Witness as proof the recent condescension from the “Honorable” Senator Barbara Boxer towards the evil, race traitor, Madame Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Per Senator Boxer's own definition, her opinion is irrelevant as well, but like I said before, this ONLY applies to conservatives.

One is a lonely number

Another short missive today.

Please keep this firmly in your mind when you digest all of the bilge coming out of our or new congressional leaders:

Per our Constitution, there is only ONE person in charge of our military forces: it's The President, not the 535 members of Congress and not the New York Times, despite the rantings of "Queen Bee" Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and not the talking heads on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC or even Fox News. The President. Period. End of Story. Get it?

I heard that it's beginning to snow in New Yawk. Does that mean that we're now threatened by global cooling? I had to laugh at the recent report that 2006 was the hottest on record, never mind that we've only been keeping records for slightly more than 100 years. We're all gonna die! - Geez...

Just a quickie

Hey,

Happy frickin' New Year! Way too much happening in the world to comment in a limited blog update today. My outstanding wife and I are now moved into our new indebtedness. We're enlisting my father-in-law to do some needed upgrades and our domicile should soon be a sweet ride.

My best wishes to GPE on his travels and adventures. Obviously I agree that there is something rotten in NY, and it definitely ain't NJ (for once).

More to come when I can form coherent thought...

Oh, and don't forget to disregard the President Bush-caused, planet destroying, SNOW STORM currently flourishing in the Midwest. Remember the credo: If it doesn't happen in New York, then it isn't newsworthy.

Disclaimer: If the stench in NYC was a precursor to a future attack, then I definitely recant and wish all sorts of nastiness against the perpetrators of such cowardliness.