Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
My Dear Rover
I am 57 years old. I am going to assume that I am a few years older than you. I attended college from 1973 - 1977 and with one more year for the Masters, I entered the workforce in the summer of 1978 and was a member until I retired in 2010. I would not call Clarkson a liberal school at the time, but the attitudes were changing. I am also the product of 11 years of Catholic education that had not started to go off the rails too far until late in HS. Hence, my attitudes to some social prospects are a bit more dogmatic and conservative than those who were educated in later decades. I tend to see things more in terms of black and white then shades of grey. When my sociology professor back in 1976 professed that he would not be upset if he saw his son and daughter copulating, it shocked me and other members of the class. Today, I'm not so sure how the class would react.
I still believe in the 10 Commandments. Since I am not Christ or His Mother, sometimes I fail. But the Commandments are the central guidelines for good behavior, wouldn't you agree? Yet, it seems acceptable these days to violate a few (many), and it's OK - as long as you are not caught. And, if you are, repent (preferably in public), and you're OK to continue. The moral today is "don't get caught."
The article may have been 2 months old, but the bill mentioned in the story is an established fact. So, never mind the date, the facts are that a Congresswomen from California (Bay Area) introduced a bill mirroring the California law that could be construed to prohibit counseling to change a child molester's behavior. I pointed out the bill as an example of liberal lunacy. I'd like to change a molester's behavior, wouldn't you? Preferably while he/she is safely behind bars, but if the behavior is latent, then the earlier the better. Fortunately the bill died in committee.
Is conservatism, as you define it (anti liberal), dead? As I understand it, not yet, but it's getting there. Why? Partially because of the me first, anything goes, instant gratification culture that I see the parents teaching and colleges are turning out. Keep it up and the sheer weight of numbers will overwhelm the holdouts. Case in point is homosexual marriage. In the 1970's it was unthinkable. Now it's accepted. Where did the change in attitudes come from? It had to come from somewhere. If the trend started when I was in college, we've had a few generations who have been educated in our "elite" universities to blame the white western male for all of the world's troubles (simplification? yes, but it's prevalent).
Now, you may cite members of the Republican party as "conservatives". Some are - many are not. Barry Goldwater, God rest his soul, was a conservative. Jacob Javits was a liberal. Neither were opportunists. Maybe that's the problem today -- too many opportunists and too few "statesmen".
Sadly, respecting your opponent's views is not the case today. In academia, and on this board, a non-liberal, non progressive attitude is derided. I believe "knuckledragger" is the favored term. Others, particularly in academia, use "racist".
So, where does that leave us (me)? Right now I am wading through the Bowdoin College study. It's interesting and requires much thought as I read it. However, there is a theme in there, which I have observed repeatedly, both here and in other places -- when a liberal's views are questioned, they attack the messenger or the message. Very few will debate the issues.
Am I in favor of homosexual marriage? No. I think the behavior is morally wrong. However, if the state (not Federal) legislature votes it in, then it's legally correct. It may be morally wrong, but it's legal. Ditto with my stance on abortion. In the end, the Supreme Judge will let everyone know who is right/wrong.
I fear that once there is a loosening of moral standards, there will be a tipping point that may (may, Rover, not will) make the times of Nero look tame. I think the Greeks called it Pandora's Box. I wonder what historians will call it for us and the rest of Western Civilization.
So anyway Rover (and others), consider the source of all this back and forth -- a bill introduced by a California female democrat. I leave you with the 2010 words of LA Times columnist Burt Prelutsky
Sounds good, but one has to wonder if joecct and flaggy will man up and admit their error.
Which is sad in a way. While Flaggy is generally thought of as a lost causegetting people like joecct hooked into this idiocy is sad to see. Shows the deep problems conservatism has. They'll embrace any BS and turn themselves into laughingstocks just in the fleeting hope of scoring one for their side. That's fine if the beef is legit, but really, how many absurd stories have we heard already and we're only half way through Obama's Presidency?
As I often say, people like Dick Morris get paid to make fools of themselves. People like Michelle Bachmann hope to get paid to make fools of themselves. Not sure what the others are getting out of it...
My Dear Rover
I am 57 years old. I am going to assume that I am a few years older than you. I attended college from 1973 - 1977 and with one more year for the Masters, I entered the workforce in the summer of 1978 and was a member until I retired in 2010. I would not call Clarkson a liberal school at the time, but the attitudes were changing. I am also the product of 11 years of Catholic education that had not started to go off the rails too far until late in HS. Hence, my attitudes to some social prospects are a bit more dogmatic and conservative than those who were educated in later decades. I tend to see things more in terms of black and white then shades of grey. When my sociology professor back in 1976 professed that he would not be upset if he saw his son and daughter copulating, it shocked me and other members of the class. Today, I'm not so sure how the class would react.
I still believe in the 10 Commandments. Since I am not Christ or His Mother, sometimes I fail. But the Commandments are the central guidelines for good behavior, wouldn't you agree? Yet, it seems acceptable these days to violate a few (many), and it's OK - as long as you are not caught. And, if you are, repent (preferably in public), and you're OK to continue. The moral today is "don't get caught."
The article may have been 2 months old, but the bill mentioned in the story is an established fact. So, never mind the date, the facts are that a Congresswomen from California (Bay Area) introduced a bill mirroring the California law that could be construed to prohibit counseling to change a child molester's behavior. I pointed out the bill as an example of liberal lunacy. I'd like to change a molester's behavior, wouldn't you? Preferably while he/she is safely behind bars, but if the behavior is latent, then the earlier the better. Fortunately the bill died in committee.
Is conservatism, as you define it (anti liberal), dead? As I understand it, not yet, but it's getting there. Why? Partially because of the me first, anything goes, instant gratification culture that I see the parents teaching and colleges are turning out. Keep it up and the sheer weight of numbers will overwhelm the holdouts. Case in point is homosexual marriage. In the 1970's it was unthinkable. Now it's accepted. Where did the change in attitudes come from? It had to come from somewhere. If the trend started when I was in college, we've had a few generations who have been educated in our "elite" universities to blame the white western male for all of the world's troubles (simplification? yes, but it's prevalent).
Now, you may cite members of the Republican party as "conservatives". Some are - many are not. Barry Goldwater, God rest his soul, was a conservative. Jacob Javits was a liberal. Neither were opportunists. Maybe that's the problem today -- too many opportunists and too few "statesmen".
Sadly, respecting your opponent's views is not the case today. In academia, and on this board, a non-liberal, non progressive attitude is derided. I believe "knuckledragger" is the favored term. Others, particularly in academia, use "racist".
So, where does that leave us (me)? Right now I am wading through the Bowdoin College study. It's interesting and requires much thought as I read it. However, there is a theme in there, which I have observed repeatedly, both here and in other places -- when a liberal's views are questioned, they attack the messenger or the message. Very few will debate the issues.
Am I in favor of homosexual marriage? No. I think the behavior is morally wrong. However, if the state (not Federal) legislature votes it in, then it's legally correct. It may be morally wrong, but it's legal. Ditto with my stance on abortion. In the end, the Supreme Judge will let everyone know who is right/wrong.
I fear that once there is a loosening of moral standards, there will be a tipping point that may (may, Rover, not will) make the times of Nero look tame. I think the Greeks called it Pandora's Box. I wonder what historians will call it for us and the rest of Western Civilization.
So anyway Rover (and others), consider the source of all this back and forth -- a bill introduced by a California female democrat. I leave you with the 2010 words of LA Times columnist Burt Prelutsky
I just hope that whatever I do is good enough at the end of the day for whatever awaits us all.