May Sanity Prevail.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
The fallacy of moral decline....
Hi Friends;
Reading Scottie's post, one of the first words that caught my attention was "moral decline". I began a search for those very words. Some time ago, I'd read a blurb about how "the decline of moral values" has been a part of every political campaign since before Lincoln. Further, it was always the fault of the incumbant and his party rather than the challenging party(s), and could only be solved by the immediate change of rulers.
Well, I couldn't find that article or information. Mainly because I read this article and stopped looking for the moment.
If you ask my impression of the concept of moral decline, I point to the Kardashians and Jersey Shore. But, guess what...... I Change The Chanel! And, while that may not be fair, my real point is that just because I don't agree with someone's "morals" I still retain the liberty to not take part. It does not make my own so very correct, theirs so very wrong, and surely doesn't place in the role of the decider of what shall be and what shall not.
Well, here is an interesting article. I stole it from George Monbiot (The Guardian, 5/14/12) here's the link if you would like to check out the source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/14/family-life-best-for-1000-years
Moral decay? Family life's the best it's been for 1,000 yearsConservatives' concerns about marriage seem to be based on a past that is fabricated from their own anxieties and obsessions.
'Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman." So says the Coalition for Marriage, whose petition against same-sex unions in the UK has so far attracted 500,000 signatures. It's a familiar claim, and it is wrong. Dozens of societies, across many centuries, have recognised same-sex marriage. In a few cases, before the 14th century, it was even celebrated in church.
This is an example of a widespread phenomenon: myth-making by cultural conservatives about past relationships. Scarcely challenged, family values campaigners have been able to construct a history that is almost entirely false.
The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel rare to behold. Those who promote it are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that "if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple". He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.
This theme was aggressively pursued by the church for some 1,500 years. In his classic book A World of Their Own Making, Professor John Gillis points out that until the Reformation, the state of holiness was not matrimony but lifelong chastity. There were no married saints in the early medieval church. Godly families in this world were established not by men and women, united in bestial matrimony, but by the holy orders, whose members were the brothers or brides of Christ. Like most monotheistic religions (which developed among nomadic peoples), Christianity placed little value on the home. A Christian's true home belonged to another realm, and until he reached it, through death, he was considered an exile from the family of God.
The Reformation preachers created a new ideal of social organisation – the godly household – but this bore little relationship to the nuclear family. By their mid-teens, often much earlier, Gillis tells us, "virtually all young people lived and worked in another dwelling for shorter or longer periods". Across much of Europe, the majority belonged – as servants, apprentices and labourers – to houses other than those of their biological parents. The poor, by and large, did not form households; they joined them.
The father of the house, who described and treated his charges as his children, typically was unrelated to most of them. Family, prior to the 19th century, meant everyone who lived in the house. What the Reformation sanctified was the proto-industrial labour force, working and sleeping under one roof.
The belief that sex outside marriage was rare in previous centuries is also unfounded. The majority, who were too poor to marry formally, Gillis writes, "could love as they liked as long as they were discreet about it". Before the 19th century, those who intended to marry began to sleep together as soon as they had made their spousals (declared their intentions). This practice was sanctioned on the grounds that it allowed couples to discover whether or not they were compatible. If they were not, they could break it off. Premarital pregnancy was common and often uncontroversial, as long as provision was made for the children.
The nuclear family, as idealised today, was an invention of the Victorians, but it bore little relationship to the family life we are told to emulate. Its development was driven by economic rather than spiritual needs, as the industrial revolution made manufacturing in the household unviable. Much as the Victorians might extol their families, "it was simply assumed that men would have their extramarital affairs and women would also find intimacy, even passion, outside marriage" (often with other women). Gillis links the 20th-century attempt to find intimacy and passion only within marriage, and the impossible expectations this raises, to the rise in the rate of divorce.
Children's lives were characteristically wretched: farmed out to wet nurses, sometimes put to work in factories and mines, beaten, neglected, often abandoned as infants. In his book A History of Childhood, Colin Heywood reports that "the scale of abandonment in certain towns was simply staggering", reaching one third or a half of all the children born in some European cities. Street gangs of feral youths caused as much moral panic in late 19th-century England as they do today.
Conservatives often hark back to the golden age of the 1950s. But in the 1950s, John Gillis shows, people of the same persuasion believed they had suffered a great moral decline since the early 20th century. In the early 20th century, people fetishised the family lives of the Victorians. The Victorians invented this nostalgia, looking back with longing to imagined family lives before the industrial revolution.
In the Daily Telegraph today Cristina Odone maintained that "anyone who wants to improve lives in this country knows that the traditional family is key". But the tradition she invokes is imaginary. Far from this being, as cultural conservatives assert, a period of unique moral depravity, family life and the raising of children is, for most people, now surely better in the west than at any time in the past 1,000 years.
The conservatives' supposedly moral concerns turn out to be nothing but an example of the age-old custom of first idealising and then sanctifying one's own culture. The past they invoke is fabricated from their own anxieties and obsessions. It has nothing to offer us.
Reading Scottie's post, one of the first words that caught my attention was "moral decline". I began a search for those very words. Some time ago, I'd read a blurb about how "the decline of moral values" has been a part of every political campaign since before Lincoln. Further, it was always the fault of the incumbant and his party rather than the challenging party(s), and could only be solved by the immediate change of rulers.
Well, I couldn't find that article or information. Mainly because I read this article and stopped looking for the moment.
If you ask my impression of the concept of moral decline, I point to the Kardashians and Jersey Shore. But, guess what...... I Change The Chanel! And, while that may not be fair, my real point is that just because I don't agree with someone's "morals" I still retain the liberty to not take part. It does not make my own so very correct, theirs so very wrong, and surely doesn't place in the role of the decider of what shall be and what shall not.
Well, here is an interesting article. I stole it from George Monbiot (The Guardian, 5/14/12) here's the link if you would like to check out the source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/14/family-life-best-for-1000-years
'Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman." So says the Coalition for Marriage, whose petition against same-sex unions in the UK has so far attracted 500,000 signatures. It's a familiar claim, and it is wrong. Dozens of societies, across many centuries, have recognised same-sex marriage. In a few cases, before the 14th century, it was even celebrated in church.
This is an example of a widespread phenomenon: myth-making by cultural conservatives about past relationships. Scarcely challenged, family values campaigners have been able to construct a history that is almost entirely false.
The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel rare to behold. Those who promote it are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that "if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple". He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.
This theme was aggressively pursued by the church for some 1,500 years. In his classic book A World of Their Own Making, Professor John Gillis points out that until the Reformation, the state of holiness was not matrimony but lifelong chastity. There were no married saints in the early medieval church. Godly families in this world were established not by men and women, united in bestial matrimony, but by the holy orders, whose members were the brothers or brides of Christ. Like most monotheistic religions (which developed among nomadic peoples), Christianity placed little value on the home. A Christian's true home belonged to another realm, and until he reached it, through death, he was considered an exile from the family of God.
The Reformation preachers created a new ideal of social organisation – the godly household – but this bore little relationship to the nuclear family. By their mid-teens, often much earlier, Gillis tells us, "virtually all young people lived and worked in another dwelling for shorter or longer periods". Across much of Europe, the majority belonged – as servants, apprentices and labourers – to houses other than those of their biological parents. The poor, by and large, did not form households; they joined them.
The father of the house, who described and treated his charges as his children, typically was unrelated to most of them. Family, prior to the 19th century, meant everyone who lived in the house. What the Reformation sanctified was the proto-industrial labour force, working and sleeping under one roof.
The belief that sex outside marriage was rare in previous centuries is also unfounded. The majority, who were too poor to marry formally, Gillis writes, "could love as they liked as long as they were discreet about it". Before the 19th century, those who intended to marry began to sleep together as soon as they had made their spousals (declared their intentions). This practice was sanctioned on the grounds that it allowed couples to discover whether or not they were compatible. If they were not, they could break it off. Premarital pregnancy was common and often uncontroversial, as long as provision was made for the children.
The nuclear family, as idealised today, was an invention of the Victorians, but it bore little relationship to the family life we are told to emulate. Its development was driven by economic rather than spiritual needs, as the industrial revolution made manufacturing in the household unviable. Much as the Victorians might extol their families, "it was simply assumed that men would have their extramarital affairs and women would also find intimacy, even passion, outside marriage" (often with other women). Gillis links the 20th-century attempt to find intimacy and passion only within marriage, and the impossible expectations this raises, to the rise in the rate of divorce.
Children's lives were characteristically wretched: farmed out to wet nurses, sometimes put to work in factories and mines, beaten, neglected, often abandoned as infants. In his book A History of Childhood, Colin Heywood reports that "the scale of abandonment in certain towns was simply staggering", reaching one third or a half of all the children born in some European cities. Street gangs of feral youths caused as much moral panic in late 19th-century England as they do today.
Conservatives often hark back to the golden age of the 1950s. But in the 1950s, John Gillis shows, people of the same persuasion believed they had suffered a great moral decline since the early 20th century. In the early 20th century, people fetishised the family lives of the Victorians. The Victorians invented this nostalgia, looking back with longing to imagined family lives before the industrial revolution.
In the Daily Telegraph today Cristina Odone maintained that "anyone who wants to improve lives in this country knows that the traditional family is key". But the tradition she invokes is imaginary. Far from this being, as cultural conservatives assert, a period of unique moral depravity, family life and the raising of children is, for most people, now surely better in the west than at any time in the past 1,000 years.
The conservatives' supposedly moral concerns turn out to be nothing but an example of the age-old custom of first idealising and then sanctifying one's own culture. The past they invoke is fabricated from their own anxieties and obsessions. It has nothing to offer us.
Friday, September 28, 2012
When does one arrive at adulthood?
Tonight, I'm watching a 20/20 story on ABC television of a woman, a Ms. Colleps who had sex with five 18 year-olds. She was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Why? Well, mostly because she was a highschool teacher and these were students.
I'm not saying it was right, so don't throw things at me.
What I'd like to ask, though, is that we compare thsese 18 year old "victims" to the many "surprise, you're an adult" kids who are sentenced as adults as young as 11.
I remember the day I was officially an adult. I was never a great one for birthdays. They weren't always so happy for me as a kid, and as an adult I ignore them. Just another day. But, the day I was no longer a kid, officially.... it was huge for me if for no-one else. I didn't feel so much as an adult, but I was glad I was now free to be one.
Now we steal not only our children's childhood, but their day of majority. We tell them that the state will decide when they are an adult, and will move that target at a whim.
Well, I'm not trying to make any world-class points, just to say that we have a really weird ass culture.
I'm not saying it was right, so don't throw things at me.
What I'd like to ask, though, is that we compare thsese 18 year old "victims" to the many "surprise, you're an adult" kids who are sentenced as adults as young as 11.
I remember the day I was officially an adult. I was never a great one for birthdays. They weren't always so happy for me as a kid, and as an adult I ignore them. Just another day. But, the day I was no longer a kid, officially.... it was huge for me if for no-one else. I didn't feel so much as an adult, but I was glad I was now free to be one.
Now we steal not only our children's childhood, but their day of majority. We tell them that the state will decide when they are an adult, and will move that target at a whim.
Well, I'm not trying to make any world-class points, just to say that we have a really weird ass culture.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Well, never so good at Math....
Hello My Friends;
Not so long ago, I told you how I was one of the 99%. Well, after hearing young Mitt speak, I guess I'm getting a whole lot closer to the top! I'm now one of the 47%! Wooo Hooo!
Yep. I am dependent upon the "Government Dole". Oh, don't get me wrong - between my two jobs, I work somewhere between 48 and 54 hours a week - down from 60+ now with the new position. And, being single male, I pay a hefty bit of tax. And, I pay a fair bit in property tax, sales tax, gas tax, "sin tax" (I drink beer), etc. Still, I'm on the government dole...... I'm one of those crazy ones, don't you know, who want to eat, have health care - and I want the government make sure it's available. Yep. That's me - a 47%er.
Like yesterday; I went to the market. You would not believe it, but I drove on ROADS! Oh, I felt so embarrassed to not be blazing a trail through the countryside on my own, but I'm a government dependent type, so I used the roads the government built.
Of course, still being one of those government needy types, I drove my pick-up, complete with all the government mandated equipment, like puncture resistant gas tank, tires to government spec., and would you believe I wore my seat belt!
While on the way, I passed one of the government types who patrol the roads looking for those who put my life in jeopardy by not following the government mandated rules - like what side of the road to use, speed, following distance, stop signs. Oh, the craziness. It was short lived, though, because that government type guy went rushing off to help some nice people who challenged the laws of physics and lost - but they were ok, as their vehicles were equipped with the government mandated safety equipment and their car was equipped with bumpers and crumple zones so they could survive an accident.
When I got to the market, being one of those needy types, I didn't slaughter my cow myself. Nope. I bought meat from an already slaughtered cow. I was even sure to get a package that came from one of those government law controlled slaughterhouses that have to use healthy animals, in a healthy environment, and even use refrigeration and stuff. Sorry, I'm a wimp. I only needed a pound of ground round, seemed a bit senseless to kill Bessy myself and do all the work.... well, like I said, I'm a 47%er government dole needy type. I'm not even going to tell you about how I shamefully bought vegetables that weren't grown in human waste.
Oh, my friends, you would not believe... I passed by the pharmacy while in the store. You know, they put medicines in there that the government makes the drug companies make correctly!?! Yep, they can't just put anything in a bottle, tell us it will cure whatever.... What softies we are.
I won't tell you about the hospital where the government makes the doctors and nurses wash their hands and other craziness like licensing and stuff.
Well, I'm so embarrassed to go on. I'm just not one of those independent types no matter how hard I try. I'll never be like Mitt - a self made man who brought himself up from nothing. Nope. I'm not one who is able to travel in a conveyance I created myself, over uncharted lands, killing and dressing out my own meat as I go. I'm just one of those sucking on the government teat. Damn.
Ok, sarcasm aside. You know what really pisses me off? It's not the fact that I'm paying taxes so this asshole can go around pimping out our country to the fat cat rich, I'm pissed that he is so enamored with the rich that he would forget that his goal should not be to kick the 47% who don't pay taxes due to being poor, being elderly, being on health assistance, or being a kid, but to bring all Americans up to the point where we are so wealthy that we don't have the poor, the hungry, the sick or the needy!
Yep. I am dependent upon the "Government Dole". Oh, don't get me wrong - between my two jobs, I work somewhere between 48 and 54 hours a week - down from 60+ now with the new position. And, being single male, I pay a hefty bit of tax. And, I pay a fair bit in property tax, sales tax, gas tax, "sin tax" (I drink beer), etc. Still, I'm on the government dole...... I'm one of those crazy ones, don't you know, who want to eat, have health care - and I want the government make sure it's available. Yep. That's me - a 47%er.
Like yesterday; I went to the market. You would not believe it, but I drove on ROADS! Oh, I felt so embarrassed to not be blazing a trail through the countryside on my own, but I'm a government dependent type, so I used the roads the government built.
Of course, still being one of those government needy types, I drove my pick-up, complete with all the government mandated equipment, like puncture resistant gas tank, tires to government spec., and would you believe I wore my seat belt!
While on the way, I passed one of the government types who patrol the roads looking for those who put my life in jeopardy by not following the government mandated rules - like what side of the road to use, speed, following distance, stop signs. Oh, the craziness. It was short lived, though, because that government type guy went rushing off to help some nice people who challenged the laws of physics and lost - but they were ok, as their vehicles were equipped with the government mandated safety equipment and their car was equipped with bumpers and crumple zones so they could survive an accident.
When I got to the market, being one of those needy types, I didn't slaughter my cow myself. Nope. I bought meat from an already slaughtered cow. I was even sure to get a package that came from one of those government law controlled slaughterhouses that have to use healthy animals, in a healthy environment, and even use refrigeration and stuff. Sorry, I'm a wimp. I only needed a pound of ground round, seemed a bit senseless to kill Bessy myself and do all the work.... well, like I said, I'm a 47%er government dole needy type. I'm not even going to tell you about how I shamefully bought vegetables that weren't grown in human waste.
Oh, my friends, you would not believe... I passed by the pharmacy while in the store. You know, they put medicines in there that the government makes the drug companies make correctly!?! Yep, they can't just put anything in a bottle, tell us it will cure whatever.... What softies we are.
I won't tell you about the hospital where the government makes the doctors and nurses wash their hands and other craziness like licensing and stuff.
Well, I'm so embarrassed to go on. I'm just not one of those independent types no matter how hard I try. I'll never be like Mitt - a self made man who brought himself up from nothing. Nope. I'm not one who is able to travel in a conveyance I created myself, over uncharted lands, killing and dressing out my own meat as I go. I'm just one of those sucking on the government teat. Damn.
Ok, sarcasm aside. You know what really pisses me off? It's not the fact that I'm paying taxes so this asshole can go around pimping out our country to the fat cat rich, I'm pissed that he is so enamored with the rich that he would forget that his goal should not be to kick the 47% who don't pay taxes due to being poor, being elderly, being on health assistance, or being a kid, but to bring all Americans up to the point where we are so wealthy that we don't have the poor, the hungry, the sick or the needy!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)