In October 2008 a movie was sent to 28 million people in the United States, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War on the West. Filming, producing, and distributing a movie on such a wide scale must have been very costly. It was done for a reason.
The video was not sent to publicly known free thinkers like me. I obtained it from a mentally ill client whose symptoms include delusions of being the archangel Michael or even Jesus Christ. The movie disturbed him and it took quite a bit of talking to get him balanced out again. While my client is mentally ill with religious delusions, I wonder what effect such a film has on people in general.
Up front it is stated that the video was produced by The Clarion Fund, an “independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization devoted to educating the public about national security matters.” Over the last eight years we have learned that wording can mask intentions. For example, how many people read this description yet fail to consider that non-partisan isn’t the same thing as unbiased? And how many jump down a level and consider when security is named as an issue that insecurity is the problem, and if this is true then why aren’t we working to increase America’s self-concept? As to the claim of independence, I haven’t researched where the money came from to produce and distribute this video. If we had investigative journalism it would be an interesting assignment.
At the beginning and the end of the video the point is made that many Muslims are decent, peaceful people, and the video is not about them. However, slyly stuck in the middle is the fear-producing comment that radical Muslims are sprinkled over the entire world population and you can’t tell the difference. Therefore, every Muslim must be suspect. And when they criticize Hitler for wanting to kill Jews I wonder what their rationale is for advocating the killing of radical Muslims, who can’t be distinguished from the mainstream?
The movie continually shows images of the desecration of the national symbols of the United States, Britain, Israel, and a few other countries. While the language being spoken over the images was purposefully ‘moderated’, a good many people will have emotional reactions to the desecration of what they consider national or sacred to them and they are unlikely to hear words.
The video follows the national trend to confuse opinion with fact. The historians in the video present accurate facts from history but then draw conclusions that are opinion; other historians considering the same historical facts come up with different conclusions.
It became obvious that those decrying radical Islam are oblivious to radical Christianity. Halfway through the movie I kept thinking of the old saw ‘the pot calling the kettle black.’ For the rest of the video I was able to insert ‘Christian extremists’ in place of ‘Muslim extremists’ and it fit just as well. When they go on and on about Muslim radicals following the Nazi ideal of world domination I keep thinking about the Project for a New American Century that has the same goal.
I agreed with the recommendation at the end that education of the people about religious extremism was necessary to keep jihad from playing out. Yet the logic was shattered when the early segments that showed Muslim radicals shouting “Death to America!” was replaced with Americans shouting “Death to terrorists!” as part of the solution. You cannot douse a fire with gasoline.
It didn’t surprise me when the term ‘Islamofascism’ was introduced about three-quarters of the way through. That’s what everything was leading up to. And it confirmed my suspicion: this whole issue isn’t about Muslims. Or religion at all. It’s about the King of the Mountain.
It’s a bunch of well researched phenomena. Those who continually allege hatred and malice toward those whom they refuse to meet are projecting their own unacceptable traits. The two most socially acceptable areas to mask one’s dark side yet play out its dictates are government and religion. When religious practice becomes extreme – and violates the strictures toward peace and love – one is only using religion as the storefront and deals sin from the back. In reality we are not dealing with Christianity or Islam; we are dealing with unacknowledged and unaccepted hatred. In King of the Mountain, as is well illustrated by history, when one player sets himself up as the unassailable master it provokes others to prove he’s wrong; in more practical matters when one player oppresses others the others will speak out, and if not heard at the editorial level will find ways to make themselves heard up to and including violence. Finally, though it never made it to the psychologist’s diagnostic manual, a disorder that was well researched after Hitler fell is termed authoritarian personality disorder, and includes an orientation toward fascism. Personality disorders know nothing of national boundaries. It can happen in America.
A quick search of the Internet reveals fourteen traits of a developing fascistic state. Without going over them here, in the last eight years the United States has been incorporating several of them, including militarism, secrecy, stealing elections, industry profit over the public good, and government control of the banks. Our reluctance to believe that this could happen to our nation gives the power brokers time and material to turn things this way. In 1925 no German would have said that they could end up in a dictatorship like Hitler’s within fifteen years.
Obsession is a good word for the video. It was distributed to sway those who are still ambivalent about who to vote for on Nov. 4. Yet we must be fair and recognize that it applies not only to Islamic fanatics but also to the Christofascists who have control of our nation at the moment. It is urgent that we recognize this so that we may remove them from power, partner with the other nations and religions in the world to remove them from elsewhere, and pursue the real tasks of cultivating peace and elevating humanity.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Doing Time
Religion is like an hourglass.
At the outset it’s difficult because the sand is trying to go up. Each grain of sand is an aspect of the person, and the person sees the narrow constriction in the middle as The Way Gods Wants Things. It’s nearly overwhelming seeing all your grains of sand and thinking of getting them through the constriction, especially knowing that some of them aren’t supposed to go through. And the fear is that if you leave enough of the grains behind you’ll not be the same person, you won’t have the interesting colors they bring. This is balanced against urgings by the church and the importance of your image to others; you must appear as if you want to leave behind the sinful grains.
Some people make the transition. For a few the constriction is relatively short. For most it is longer and more arduous. There is a struggle to leave behind things which are supposed to remain there but they are so darned attractive. Or compulsive. Or part of your arsenal of habit or defense. Some extend the constriction into the rest of their lives, settling for the struggle, never really believing that they will be free of sinfulness. They may go to church faithfully and give it all their effort but they never lay aside the sinful sand.
It is a shame that one’s view of the top half of the hourglass is restricted to that which can be seen through the constriction. It is a narrow aperture. If one does finally resolve to leave behind unneeded sand and comes through the constriction it turns out that one’s life begins expanding. One’s experiences, joys, and visions become far greater than could have been imagined. There is more space to spread out in, more time and energy and relaxation. It is far less of a struggle for three reasons: one has left behind the grains of sand that, it turns out, were hindrances in living well; the longer one toils the fewer grains there are to pull from the bottom of the glass; and one doesn’t need to struggle to get through a claustrophobic tunnel anymore. One has climbed out of the earth and into the air.
It is understandable if people don’t recognize – or have trouble really believing – that life eventually gets more free and expansive when their religion is at present constrictive. Perhaps we need a different type of religion to accommodate those who have made it to the top half of the glass, for although they have overcome strong difficulties through the constriction they are still imperfect and could use guidance to keep going up and up and up. No human has ever reached the top, at least alive. And we would do well to instruct those in the lower half of the glass or in the midst of the constriction that things get freer and more expansive. That way people in the constriction don’t get the idea that they’re at the top of the game, or that narrower and narrower constriction is the goal. One cannot chart a path if the destination is unknown.
I understand that the message is often given that there is joy in overcoming, yet it is confused when congregants are encouraged to remain spiritual infants (especially under the tutelage of a charismatic, self-styled master who preaches constriction), told that they are bad by nature, and are filled with fears of freedom because nobody teaches them what to do with it. I also understand that the ‘different type of religion’ could be ancient Eastern practices that assume you’ve already got things right with God and now go about improving habits of living and being for the rest of your life.
We recognize some humans who have lived in the top half of the glass: Gandhi, MLK, Jr, Schweitzer, Mother Teresa. There are those around us who seem to have an ease of living we don’t understand; they don’t have to berate themselves constantly to follow a strict path yet they seem to be good people. Although it hasn’t happened yet it is possible that a majority of people can attain this state, and when the hundredth monkey Gets It humankind will blow into a method of easier and principled living that would drop our jaws today.
At the outset it’s difficult because the sand is trying to go up. Each grain of sand is an aspect of the person, and the person sees the narrow constriction in the middle as The Way Gods Wants Things. It’s nearly overwhelming seeing all your grains of sand and thinking of getting them through the constriction, especially knowing that some of them aren’t supposed to go through. And the fear is that if you leave enough of the grains behind you’ll not be the same person, you won’t have the interesting colors they bring. This is balanced against urgings by the church and the importance of your image to others; you must appear as if you want to leave behind the sinful grains.
Some people make the transition. For a few the constriction is relatively short. For most it is longer and more arduous. There is a struggle to leave behind things which are supposed to remain there but they are so darned attractive. Or compulsive. Or part of your arsenal of habit or defense. Some extend the constriction into the rest of their lives, settling for the struggle, never really believing that they will be free of sinfulness. They may go to church faithfully and give it all their effort but they never lay aside the sinful sand.
It is a shame that one’s view of the top half of the hourglass is restricted to that which can be seen through the constriction. It is a narrow aperture. If one does finally resolve to leave behind unneeded sand and comes through the constriction it turns out that one’s life begins expanding. One’s experiences, joys, and visions become far greater than could have been imagined. There is more space to spread out in, more time and energy and relaxation. It is far less of a struggle for three reasons: one has left behind the grains of sand that, it turns out, were hindrances in living well; the longer one toils the fewer grains there are to pull from the bottom of the glass; and one doesn’t need to struggle to get through a claustrophobic tunnel anymore. One has climbed out of the earth and into the air.
It is understandable if people don’t recognize – or have trouble really believing – that life eventually gets more free and expansive when their religion is at present constrictive. Perhaps we need a different type of religion to accommodate those who have made it to the top half of the glass, for although they have overcome strong difficulties through the constriction they are still imperfect and could use guidance to keep going up and up and up. No human has ever reached the top, at least alive. And we would do well to instruct those in the lower half of the glass or in the midst of the constriction that things get freer and more expansive. That way people in the constriction don’t get the idea that they’re at the top of the game, or that narrower and narrower constriction is the goal. One cannot chart a path if the destination is unknown.
I understand that the message is often given that there is joy in overcoming, yet it is confused when congregants are encouraged to remain spiritual infants (especially under the tutelage of a charismatic, self-styled master who preaches constriction), told that they are bad by nature, and are filled with fears of freedom because nobody teaches them what to do with it. I also understand that the ‘different type of religion’ could be ancient Eastern practices that assume you’ve already got things right with God and now go about improving habits of living and being for the rest of your life.
We recognize some humans who have lived in the top half of the glass: Gandhi, MLK, Jr, Schweitzer, Mother Teresa. There are those around us who seem to have an ease of living we don’t understand; they don’t have to berate themselves constantly to follow a strict path yet they seem to be good people. Although it hasn’t happened yet it is possible that a majority of people can attain this state, and when the hundredth monkey Gets It humankind will blow into a method of easier and principled living that would drop our jaws today.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Classic rock
The local classical station introduced a new Saturday evening lineup tonight. It consisted of two hours of 1960’s era rock and then an hour of hypnotic rock with screaming guitar. It grated on me.
Why is a classical station playing screaming rock? To cater to weekend partiers? To increase its listener base? To garner more subscriber support? Well, when they go outside the limits of ‘fine’ music they lose the support of people like me.
It got me to thinking. It’s sad that schools emphasize sports over music. Both involve teamwork, of course, but by denigrating concert bands we are losing something finer in life. We are losing the ability to learn and appreciate a language that connects us to other cultures and times.
Why don’t schools have rock bands? Because, despite what many rockers want to think, it’s easy to learn guitar, bass, and drums. Granted, the superstars develop it to a level that most people can’t imitate, but it’s nowhere near the ability that has to be developed over years learning to play a concert instrument.
What’s it worth to realize that the last phrase of a Bach invention, even in its strong structure coming out devastatingly maddening and flowingly beautiful, is nothing short of cool? What’s it worth to realize that a Chopin piece is a description of the last moments of life, much more descriptive than words could ever approach? What’s it worth that research supports the fact that harried music doesn’t really relax us – it merely reflects and adds to our insane pace -- and instead classical and easier jazz can? What’s it worth to understand an ancient language and tradition, adding depth and context to existence? What message do we give our youth when we show that an aspect of human excellence isn’t really that important? What do we accomplish by making brute force equivalent to fine achievement?
The denigration of fine music is pretty much the same as believing that liberalism is a bad thing. It reflects that one hasn’t taken the time to learn something higher and pretends that where they’re at is high enough, in extreme cases deceiving themselves into believing they’re at the highest level. It is, in plain terms, ignorance on parade. The further a culture descends into this condition the sillier it becomes. It settles for immaturity that can’t see beyond itself.
No, I expect a classical station to play fine music. Even if it means a smaller donor base.
Why is a classical station playing screaming rock? To cater to weekend partiers? To increase its listener base? To garner more subscriber support? Well, when they go outside the limits of ‘fine’ music they lose the support of people like me.
It got me to thinking. It’s sad that schools emphasize sports over music. Both involve teamwork, of course, but by denigrating concert bands we are losing something finer in life. We are losing the ability to learn and appreciate a language that connects us to other cultures and times.
Why don’t schools have rock bands? Because, despite what many rockers want to think, it’s easy to learn guitar, bass, and drums. Granted, the superstars develop it to a level that most people can’t imitate, but it’s nowhere near the ability that has to be developed over years learning to play a concert instrument.
What’s it worth to realize that the last phrase of a Bach invention, even in its strong structure coming out devastatingly maddening and flowingly beautiful, is nothing short of cool? What’s it worth to realize that a Chopin piece is a description of the last moments of life, much more descriptive than words could ever approach? What’s it worth that research supports the fact that harried music doesn’t really relax us – it merely reflects and adds to our insane pace -- and instead classical and easier jazz can? What’s it worth to understand an ancient language and tradition, adding depth and context to existence? What message do we give our youth when we show that an aspect of human excellence isn’t really that important? What do we accomplish by making brute force equivalent to fine achievement?
The denigration of fine music is pretty much the same as believing that liberalism is a bad thing. It reflects that one hasn’t taken the time to learn something higher and pretends that where they’re at is high enough, in extreme cases deceiving themselves into believing they’re at the highest level. It is, in plain terms, ignorance on parade. The further a culture descends into this condition the sillier it becomes. It settles for immaturity that can’t see beyond itself.
No, I expect a classical station to play fine music. Even if it means a smaller donor base.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Closer to Believing
It was a good pop lyric, “can’t live without you”. And so immature.
You see, when we get wrapped up in the hormonal myopia that makes us think life is over if we don’t have the love of the person we’ve zoomed in on, we’re missing a big point: we had a life before focusing on that person and were able to live just fine, thank you. And if our lives weren’t okay before that person, having them around won’t fix what needs fixing inside. Besides, what motivation is there for a healthy person hook up with someone who doesn’t have things worked out? ‘Can’t live without you’ also says that our own lives aren’t complete if it takes another person to fill it.
In a more mature person the big chunks of inner problems are dealt with. The person is a mind, heart, and spirit already formed and complete. They are attractive to the type of person they want to be with. A partner is no longer a necessity, and the jump is made from ‘need’ to ‘desire’. A partner isn’t needed to complete you; a partner is sought to complement you. They don’t fill what you are lacking; they add to what you already have. They don’t distract from personal failings or participate in them, and instead are by your side as you grow past them. And if the loved person is taken away for whatever reason, it will hurt and leave an emptiness but the mature person will go on with life.
When you give someone your heart you don’t give them your soul. You don’t give them your identity, your resources, your purpose. These all become shared, but your part is still owned by you.
We are told that God wants our love and adoration. If we refuse does God go into paroxysms of grief and want to commit suicide? Nope. God continues to offer love and all its benefits and goes on with matters of the universe. Although humans are far less perfect than God, are we not able to attain this level of maturity? Of course we can. Many people have.
It would be an interesting world if most people developed this maturity. Then we would sing that ‘I need me, you need you, we want us’ (Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, Closer to Believing).
You see, when we get wrapped up in the hormonal myopia that makes us think life is over if we don’t have the love of the person we’ve zoomed in on, we’re missing a big point: we had a life before focusing on that person and were able to live just fine, thank you. And if our lives weren’t okay before that person, having them around won’t fix what needs fixing inside. Besides, what motivation is there for a healthy person hook up with someone who doesn’t have things worked out? ‘Can’t live without you’ also says that our own lives aren’t complete if it takes another person to fill it.
In a more mature person the big chunks of inner problems are dealt with. The person is a mind, heart, and spirit already formed and complete. They are attractive to the type of person they want to be with. A partner is no longer a necessity, and the jump is made from ‘need’ to ‘desire’. A partner isn’t needed to complete you; a partner is sought to complement you. They don’t fill what you are lacking; they add to what you already have. They don’t distract from personal failings or participate in them, and instead are by your side as you grow past them. And if the loved person is taken away for whatever reason, it will hurt and leave an emptiness but the mature person will go on with life.
When you give someone your heart you don’t give them your soul. You don’t give them your identity, your resources, your purpose. These all become shared, but your part is still owned by you.
We are told that God wants our love and adoration. If we refuse does God go into paroxysms of grief and want to commit suicide? Nope. God continues to offer love and all its benefits and goes on with matters of the universe. Although humans are far less perfect than God, are we not able to attain this level of maturity? Of course we can. Many people have.
It would be an interesting world if most people developed this maturity. Then we would sing that ‘I need me, you need you, we want us’ (Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, Closer to Believing).
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Disaster Memorial
"You may be right," my office mate said last Wednesday, "but it would be in poor taste to say it today."
It was the seventh anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. My observation was that as much as I've researched and learned since that time I can't help but to think that the buildings came down in a controlled demolition.
The easiest reference to start your own research would be to Google 'David Ray Griffin'. Be sure to read the government's counter-research for balance.
My own points:
It was the seventh anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. My observation was that as much as I've researched and learned since that time I can't help but to think that the buildings came down in a controlled demolition.
The easiest reference to start your own research would be to Google 'David Ray Griffin'. Be sure to read the government's counter-research for balance.
My own points:
- When the WTC was built I remember a comment made that they were built to withstand the impact of a commercial jetliner. My father was an engineer for a major airline, and that comment caught my attention.
- After the attacks Larry Silverstein, landlord of the WTC, said on a nationally-broadcast interview that a decision was made to 'pull' Building 7 after the attacks (even though it hadn't been damaged by airplanes or falling debris). 'Pull' is industry jargon for the controlled demolition of a building. But it takes weeks or months to plan, prepare, plant explosives, and execute a demolition. No word was given that any previous planning had gone into the demolition (and Silverstein also said that he authorized the NYFD to pull it; the fire department isn't in the demolition business). The demolition of Building 7 was planned and it is admitted that a controlled demolition happened at WTC that day. Silverstein made it sound like a decision made four or five hours before the building came down.
- Government explanations defy physics and common sense. The 9-11 Commission report ignores Building 7. It pretends that airplane fuel can melt steel enough to cause such a catastrophe (if it could melt metal so easily, engines would melt on a plane before it even got to the runway). The report also ignores the interior structure of WTC 1 and 2 that made them strong enough to withstand the airplanes' force.
I understand that it's a horrific thought, that it may have been an inside job. It would put our government on the level with the Nazis. It's like trying to think nuclear weapons all the way through, from the immediate to the long-lasting effects of a blast. Such things aren't supposed to be true of the United States. We're supposed to be superior, good people who lead the world. Our leaders, who would have devised and executed the plan if it was an inside job, were very open about their Christianity, and religious people aren't supposed to be capable of such hypocritical attrocities.
'Conspiracy theory' is what they call my thinking about 9-11. It will remain a theory until researched and proven or disproven. But it has been researched, and all independent research supports the 'conspiracy' so far. Perhaps it's time to apply 'conspiracy' to the official story instead.
Why can't our national leaders be horrific beasts? They've been exposed time after time after time for deceiving the public and secrecy. If they actually planned and carried out the 9-11 attacks what is the harm in holding them accountable? Are we too embarrassed to admit that we supported them, that we believed them? Do we feel guilty about it, like our promoting them to highest office made us in a way responsible for the deaths of our fellow citizens?
God knows the truth. And God knows we've all had the opportunity to search out the truth.
If it is the truth, why is it in poor taste to say it? I would think, for the sake of everyone who suffered loss on that day, that in the interest of justice and closure the truth should be spoken.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Sarah Palin Being Researched
In a brief moment watching TV before heading out for volunteer work this evening, I heard an evangelist proclaim the United States as "a Christian nation." While the major religion in our country is Christian, by constitution our nation does not sponsor Christianity or any religion. I don't know the evangelist's motivation to promote an untruth. Speaking an untruth in the name of God is disquieting.
Then a news headline came out this evening: Sarah Palin, Governer of Alaska and the nominated vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party, had been taped giving a speech where she proclaimed that the war in Iraq as "a task that is from God." She also asked audience members to pray for a $30 billion gas pipeline across Alaska because it was "God's will."
It's disquieting to confuse religion with politics. One begins to suspect that those who are after the Moslem extremists are themselves Christian extremists. Perhaps we could buy out a poverty-stricken third-world nation, move all its residents to better economic spots, and let all the religious extremists of the world go to the nation to fight it out between themselves and let the rest of us get on with the issues of growing forward.
A report on NPR today revealed that Ms. Palin, along with Senator McCain, opposes earmarks in federal legislation. It was also reported that while mayor of a town of 9,700 people just a few years ago she secured approximately $20 million in earmarks for the town. So which is it, Ms. Palin?
President Bush learned early on to cool references to 'another Father' because it disturbed too many citizens. Ms. Palin has yet to learn the lesson. But that's not as important as the underlying system of belief that prompts such statements, and that system got us into an illegal imperial holy war. Should she become vice president we could probably expect more of the current administration, no matter how much they are saying that it won't happen. If you can rationalize political will as being God's will, I suppose you can rationalize anything.
Then a news headline came out this evening: Sarah Palin, Governer of Alaska and the nominated vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party, had been taped giving a speech where she proclaimed that the war in Iraq as "a task that is from God." She also asked audience members to pray for a $30 billion gas pipeline across Alaska because it was "God's will."
It's disquieting to confuse religion with politics. One begins to suspect that those who are after the Moslem extremists are themselves Christian extremists. Perhaps we could buy out a poverty-stricken third-world nation, move all its residents to better economic spots, and let all the religious extremists of the world go to the nation to fight it out between themselves and let the rest of us get on with the issues of growing forward.
A report on NPR today revealed that Ms. Palin, along with Senator McCain, opposes earmarks in federal legislation. It was also reported that while mayor of a town of 9,700 people just a few years ago she secured approximately $20 million in earmarks for the town. So which is it, Ms. Palin?
President Bush learned early on to cool references to 'another Father' because it disturbed too many citizens. Ms. Palin has yet to learn the lesson. But that's not as important as the underlying system of belief that prompts such statements, and that system got us into an illegal imperial holy war. Should she become vice president we could probably expect more of the current administration, no matter how much they are saying that it won't happen. If you can rationalize political will as being God's will, I suppose you can rationalize anything.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
College is a Poor Investment
Reading an editorial today by Walter Williams, a university professor of economics, he was reviewing an idea by another author that college is a waste of money and effort. If he disagreed with the idea, Dr. Williams didn't make it clear. As I read it I was filled with a Quixotic murkiness. The article was mad-making.
Dr. Williams decried that colleges no longer teach critical thinking, and that students can't work abstract concepts. I am amazed he is decrying it because he has followed the conservative agenda in America for years and, simply stated, the lack of critical thinking is the result of years of dirtying the idea of liberalism.
Let me explain. Before Bush the Elder's presidency -- where 'liberal' was demoted to the dirtiness of 'the L-word' (and wife Barbara said once that she was liberal; she never said it in public again and the incident was forgotten) -- colleges were called liberal arts institutions. This was because they taught a form of thinking called 'liberal', which means the same thing as critical thinking. In those days higher education taught a higher-order thinking process.
Enter an authoritarian era. History is rife with authoritarian types gaining control of government, spending on defense and neglecting education, and even arresting academics and intellectuals. It's easy to deduce that authoritarians are threatened by critical thinking. In this neoconservative era we have seen many challenges to education, including lack of funding and lawsuits against teachers who promote a liberal agenda.
Which clues us in to another feature of the authoritarian mindset. Such people believe that teaching means telling students what to believe. It reduces the threat that anybody thinks for themselves, sees into the machinations of the authoritarian agenda, and makes a stink. Critical thinking is a lot harder; it requires that you take a variety of information from a variety of sources, compare ideas with each other, compare them to previous experience and history, compare them to rules of logic and morality, and come to an informed decision on the topic. Rather than being taught what to think, liberalism teaches you how to think. Why would anybody object to someone learning how to think? I imagine it's a fear for those who are trying to rule by deceit.
Before Bush the Elder colleges taught critical thinking through a series of general education classes at a time when young people have begun thinking abstractly and have tamed it somewhat, but are still open to new ideas. They also had students focus on one or two areas as a major so that they would be prepared to enter the workforce as professionals. Trade schools only taught specific job skills in one area and those jobs were called, well, trades. We now have garbage haulers calling their jobs professions and careers, meaning we have lost the distinction.
This would explain the lament that college students can't think critically anymore, and that they can't use abstract ideas well. When liberalism is quashed and the students are only taught information about the job they will have afterward we have reduced college to expensive trade schools. We have lost the distinction, dumbed down the students, and lost the value of higher-order thinking.
So it is maddening that Dr. Williams decries this state of higher education when the mindset he champions created it. I don't know if he realizes it consciously -- he is certainly bright enough.
It is time for us to no longer allow authoritarians and their pundit mouthpieces to bash liberalism. It is time for us to remember what it really is, to expect colleges to teach it, to remand specific job training once again to trade schools, and to not let authoritarians grab control and wreck this portion of society again and not take responsibility for it.
Dr. Williams decried that colleges no longer teach critical thinking, and that students can't work abstract concepts. I am amazed he is decrying it because he has followed the conservative agenda in America for years and, simply stated, the lack of critical thinking is the result of years of dirtying the idea of liberalism.
Let me explain. Before Bush the Elder's presidency -- where 'liberal' was demoted to the dirtiness of 'the L-word' (and wife Barbara said once that she was liberal; she never said it in public again and the incident was forgotten) -- colleges were called liberal arts institutions. This was because they taught a form of thinking called 'liberal', which means the same thing as critical thinking. In those days higher education taught a higher-order thinking process.
Enter an authoritarian era. History is rife with authoritarian types gaining control of government, spending on defense and neglecting education, and even arresting academics and intellectuals. It's easy to deduce that authoritarians are threatened by critical thinking. In this neoconservative era we have seen many challenges to education, including lack of funding and lawsuits against teachers who promote a liberal agenda.
Which clues us in to another feature of the authoritarian mindset. Such people believe that teaching means telling students what to believe. It reduces the threat that anybody thinks for themselves, sees into the machinations of the authoritarian agenda, and makes a stink. Critical thinking is a lot harder; it requires that you take a variety of information from a variety of sources, compare ideas with each other, compare them to previous experience and history, compare them to rules of logic and morality, and come to an informed decision on the topic. Rather than being taught what to think, liberalism teaches you how to think. Why would anybody object to someone learning how to think? I imagine it's a fear for those who are trying to rule by deceit.
Before Bush the Elder colleges taught critical thinking through a series of general education classes at a time when young people have begun thinking abstractly and have tamed it somewhat, but are still open to new ideas. They also had students focus on one or two areas as a major so that they would be prepared to enter the workforce as professionals. Trade schools only taught specific job skills in one area and those jobs were called, well, trades. We now have garbage haulers calling their jobs professions and careers, meaning we have lost the distinction.
This would explain the lament that college students can't think critically anymore, and that they can't use abstract ideas well. When liberalism is quashed and the students are only taught information about the job they will have afterward we have reduced college to expensive trade schools. We have lost the distinction, dumbed down the students, and lost the value of higher-order thinking.
So it is maddening that Dr. Williams decries this state of higher education when the mindset he champions created it. I don't know if he realizes it consciously -- he is certainly bright enough.
It is time for us to no longer allow authoritarians and their pundit mouthpieces to bash liberalism. It is time for us to remember what it really is, to expect colleges to teach it, to remand specific job training once again to trade schools, and to not let authoritarians grab control and wreck this portion of society again and not take responsibility for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)