Living in ‘Idiotville’
Evidence of the dumbing-down of America is everywhere. Some of it is chronicled in a new book, Blue Collar Intellectuals: When the Enlightened and the Everyman Elevated America by Daniel J. Flynn.
Flynn contends popular culture has divorced itself from the life of the mind. He has plenty of examples in case television, texting, video games, and improper use of English (”she was like and then I was like”) are not enough.
Flynn calls the digital age that has sped up the process by which we receive information “Idiotville,” because it has made us less intelligent.
“Stupid is the new smart,” writes Flynn. He says we arrived at this lower level of brain activity because as recently as the last century “the everyman aspired to high culture and … intellectuals descended from the ivory tower to speak to the everyman.” Today, he says, “Those who pursue the life of the mind have insulated themselves from popular culture. Speaking in insider jargon and writing unread books, intellectuals have locked themselves away in a ghetto of their own creation.”
That has left the nonintellectual class to fend for itself. One library in Portland, Maine, rather than leading, is being led by the unformed teenage mind. “Video gaming is just a new form of literacy,” says the “teen librarian.” If so, what’s the new form of illiteracy, ignorance about how to use a joystick?
Flynn quotes from Steven Johnson’s book, Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today’s Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. Sure, and sugar makes us slimmer. Johnson says, “Reality shows … challenge our emotional intelligence.” Emotional intelligence? In an age when feelings trump everything and too many reality TV programs feature well-heeled housewives and love-starved bachelors, “emotional intelligence” is a contradiction.
“A mind is a terrible thing to waste” is the slogan of the United Negro College Fund. It certainly is.
Here’s a potent example of what Flynn means when he writes about the destruction of our minds: “At the tony Cushing Academy in western Massachusetts, $40,000 in tuition doesn’t even get you a library anymore. ‘When I look at books, I see an outdated technology, like scrolls before books,’ the prep school’s headmaster notes, adding, ‘This isn’t Fahrenheit 451.’”
“It is, and 1984, too,” comments Flynn. “In place of the twenty thousand discarded books, the school spent $500,000 on an Orwellian ‘learning center’ complete with three giant flat-screen televisions and a cappuccino machine. School officials guessed that only a few dozen books had been checked out at any one time.”
The solution? Get rid of the books. Don’t get kids interested in books when they’d rather play World of Warcraft, or if younger, watch cartoons, which can’t be that different from The Canterbury Tales, right?
Our intellectual depth increasingly resembles floor wax; shiny on top, but lacking depth. A muscle atrophies if it is not used. Similarly, a mind becomes lazy if it is not well fed. And a weak mind dumbs-down our politics. We elect people we come to dislike because too many of us require no more of them than we require of ourselves. We then wonder why little seems to work and the country soon suffers.
In Iowa this week, followed by New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida, Republican voters will begin the process of selecting a presidential nominee. It’s not that sufficient information about the problems confronting us—along with solutions that actually work—are not available. It’s just that we’re not reading much about them.
Like, ya know, man, that’s just the way it is. Like, ya know what I’m sayin’?
© 2011 Tribune Media Services Inc.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top134 Comments to “Living in ‘Idiotville’”
Amen.
Report comment to moderator
Evidence of the dumbing-down of America is seen in the OWS groups.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes, I think the problem is in the presentation…not the presence of new technology. The solution? How about saying something worth listening to in a way that they can understand and appreciate? You can’t impose attention. You must earn it. This technological culture is the terrain on which we live now. And many of our politicians really are quite boring.
Give me one good reason to believe in this fairytale God-story that raises more questions than answers.
Give me the one word—lock, stock, and barrel.
Give it to me point blank,
fired;
a one shot, forget-me-not, over-the-top, high caliber, rifled word,
slamming truth past treadmills;
run-of-the-mill, lame excuses;
poured out hotter than lukewarm objections.
There are more questions than answers.
Give me an opportunity,
because I’m willing to take it.
Give me an opening for hoping,
because death isn’t just a monster I imagine,
crouching under bedtime stories;
lights out fairytale-gory
with no real danger;
it’s coming. We’ve all got it coming.
There’s no hiding quietly under the covers;
no holding our breath, listening to others;
no falling asleep, waking up rested;
it’s coming—give me one word.
Give me something so absurd
that I have a reason to reason;
Give me a too-close-for-comfort, comfortable epiphany—
one I can dig in and grow from;
something I can walk on and know I’m
getting somewhere.
Something simple, to keep me coming back for more,
so I can fall down
and get back up
and stay alert.
Give me the dirt.
Give me the dirt, becoming alive;
turning dust into dreams
because this is what it means to be human.
Give me the dirt, suffocating seeds,
making rotted hulls into fruit and weeds;
then grass becoming bone and muscle;
a bloodbath, meat-machine,
feeding brainstem impulses with lightning bolt instinct.
Give me the dirt, twisted into double-helix recipes for mud-pie transcendence;
a paradise of sadness, and beauty;
lost, snake-whisperers from the garden;
rejection, falling;
no protection—calling for help now.
Because here is insanity ;
dirt, holding thoughts of eternity—like broken promises;
like an accident waiting to happen;
a soul-factory run amok
counting on luck
and throwing blame like rotten apples at everything that moves
because death isn’t ready for life yet.
So give me the dirt
winded into minds,
folded into thoughts growing older than bodies,
making souls out of memories and mystery and
still missing the point
That we are absurd,
we, spoken words,
written into dust;
poetry in proteins;
amino acid adventures;
prose, still waiting for answers.
This is my reason to believe, a fairytale God-poet
writing souls on eternity
with dust.
And just because we read it wrong
doesn’t mean it’s bad poetry.
Report comment to moderator
Nah, the masses don’t need no stinkin’ education. Let them turn up their noses at technology, advanced degrees, science, medicine, and all that has made our lives longer and more enjoyable. Let them wallow in simple moralistic answers to everything, rather than thoughtful responses about economics and progress.
Let them listen to their “fairytale God-poet” and the bankers and industrialists and preachers to whom ignorance is opportunity.
Report comment to moderator
I’m all for bashing the illiteracy of our modern culture and for critiquing intellectuals for being too isolated. My wife is a theater professor at a university so both are part of my everyday life.
Video games, however, are a new kind of literacy. And illiteracy isn’t not knowing how to work a joystick (a joystick?! seriously?! that comment alone shows that Cal is techno-illiterate.) it’s not knowing how to interact with digital media or online environments. And I say that as a web developer.
When we design web products for users we do so base don conventions that started with the production of video games. People also learn to use digital interfaces fastest in game form. And that makes sense. Video games where the first translation of the previous text-based computing systems into visual ones.
You wouldn’t know how to use a mouse if Asteroids hadn’t come along with it’s little arrow -shaped spaceship and taught you to move it around to affect what was happening on the screen.
If you’re not too young but not too old, you probably saw your first digital drop down menu in a video game. Your first avatar, a digital you, definitely came from a video game, and now the avatar idea is integral to social networking and software used to make businesses more effective like Open Atrium, a project management suite.
Report comment to moderator
Nothing wrong with technology to me, the problem is what it replaces.
Report comment to moderator
A disturbing trend. Not anything new though. The late TV comedian and perhaps closet intellectual STEVE ALLEN wrote a book called “Dumbth” and you can call Steverino prophetic since it came out when the internet was in its infancy.
I still have to combat yahoos who say “It must be true I read it on the internet”. The question then becomes who will control the internet and its content?
I have bought several good books from Amazon. Some of them are stamped with “Discard” or “No longer property of the XYZ Metropolitan Library”
I do hope this school sold its now discarded library
Report comment to moderator
I remember people complaining that the telephone stopped people from writing letters thus contributing to illiteracy. Now we have blogs and e-mail and facebook and we are writing again. I’m betting kids now write better than I and my telephone generation did. Also as a fan of TV I’ve seen episodes of Babylon 5, Star Trek, Angel and House that were as beautifully written as any of the short stories I read in college. You can also find computer programs that help you design a house, write a screen play or learn the state capitals It’s all about balance.
Report comment to moderator
I think the biggest problem with technology is that it shortens the attention span. We become inpatient with anything thats not constantly fun.
Report comment to moderator
A tiny example: calculators. When children do not learn basic math facts and the ideas behind them, and they only learn to push buttons on the calculator, it is more difficult to convince them they are wrong when they input the wrong info. “But the calculator says…” is right up there with “but the internet says…”
Report comment to moderator
It was also said when writing started that it would be the downfall of society as people would stop remembering.
Report comment to moderator
“Let them listen to their “fairytale God-poet” and the bankers and industrialists and preachers to whom ignorance is opportunity.”
You only say that because you think your Obamessiah is so much better..
And he is quite the manipulitive, deceitful opportunist, isn’t he?
Just Google “Americans Elect” and look who the founder is and what he’s up to…
Report comment to moderator
I have said this before but in conjunction with KBells 9, many many many write ups on children will say something like so and so loves computer games and is on ADHD meds. You get the foster children into the home, remove the games and the tv and suddenly, they start being able to do things that take a bit of focus whereas before, it was not an option.
Report comment to moderator
MiM: Yep, and he can even spell.
By the way, you folks are the ones who crowned him Messiah. You desperately needed some kind of anti-Christ. I think he’s a decent man, a well-educated man, and one who does care about the widening gaps in our society. Say what you will about “his” solution (which was actually a Republican solution just two years ago) , the lack of health care is a very serious solution. As is the gap between rich and poor.
Report comment to moderator
13. I imagine that a child from a difficult situation may use video games as an escape.
Report comment to moderator
Excellent article by Cal Thomas.
If one simply coldly and objectively views the present condition and trajectory of the human race as a whole, and allows for (or accepts) no supernatural or revelatory purpose for human existence, the future is utterly bleak and hopeless.
Scientifically and intellectually speaking, the human race is sliding toward oblivion, clutching its television remotes and video remotes, thumbs spasmodically jerking, pupils dilating and shrinking, too mesmerized by flickering images and sterile artificially created virtual universes to think, to dream new dreams, or to actually live except in pixelated shadow-worlds created by others.
Ever see pictures of brain scans of people playing video games or watching television, contrasted to brain scans of people reading, or thinking, or analyzing? Techno-literacy? More like a visible cancer of black oblivion, eating greedily into the gray matter of an entire generation.
No Shakespeares, no Beethovens, no Newtons, no Einsteins, no Goddards, no von Brauns, these days.
And so, viewed clinically, the evolutionary trajectory for the human animal has an ever-accelerating and inexorable downward arc. The apex of the curve was (maybe) around the late 1960’s when the human animal actually stood briefly on another world in the Cosmos and looked back upon Earth.
Past extinction events were maybe caused by impacts, or violent upheavals of the crust of the Earth, or freakish changes in global climate.
But the human race is fated to go in a different way, a far more whimpering and pathetic way. Extinction through self-lobotomization by electronically induced carpet-bombing of the higher centers of the brain.
Brave New World, but much worse.
Hopeless. That is, in the absence of supernatural or revelatory purpose for human existence.
Report comment to moderator
De-evolution! We’ve been going downhill since Genesis 3.
Report comment to moderator
I know that we are born with a bunch of brain just waiting to find its place. Some of those things are quickly set in place early on and can’t change. Others can continue to morph. For example: the brain activity of a child in distress (an abusive home) will show differently on the screen from a child in a calm home. I also understand though I have not seen the scans, that a brain doing work through technology works differently than a brain working through hands on activity. My understanding is that the first can be rehabilitated but not so much the second. It changes our thinking process. I don’t know if it is better or not but it seems, if you limit the areas your brain is going to be able to work on things, it is not so good. And then we have people voting for things based on right now rather than thinking it through.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells, as an example:
http://www.intomobile.com/2009/02/25/sms-text-messaging-makes-kids-smarter/
Also, I thought up another counter point to “video games are making us dumber” based on your complaint that they shorten attention spans, which is not true. Video games popularize technology to the betterment of all of us. When you said you thought they shortened attention spans, I immediate thought “She’s never played Myst” or any of the other epic puzzle games that require thinking, concentration, and a big input of TIME. But Myst–epicly popular video game of the early 90’s–was also one of the things that popularized CD-ROM.
Report comment to moderator
When you read a newspaper, do you read the entire article? Do you have time to read books? Do you have time to go outside and smell the flowers? Do you have time to sit and be quiet? Do you have time to visit with your neighbor? Do you have time to help somebody? Do you get a real night of sleep (eight hours for adults, ten for teens)? If so, then dipping into technology should not be a problem.
Report comment to moderator
Moderation in all things. I sewed, played outside, read books, and played computer games growing up. I learned of another use for technological skill while training in the OR. Apparently the generation who grew up playing video games have an easier time performing laparoscopic and arthroscopic surgery. Since they use long handled tools to perform the surgery, while watching the screen, those who are familiar with producing movements by remote control on a screen perform better. But before you see your little video gamer as a future brain surgeon, remember that being a surgeon still requires excellent manual skills. I more than once heard a surgeon lecture his students on their poor suturing skills. Not much use being able operate if you can’t stitch your patients after
Report comment to moderator
#14 Arcadia
“By the way, you folks are the ones who crowned him Messiah.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto
No, he claimed Messiahship for himself. Is it only conservatives who remember this speech?
Report comment to moderator
Isolation can be bad either way, whether it is video games or even intellectual books.
I don’t see how a book or a video game can be any more superior over the other when misused.
For every great book, there are 100,000 others that are awful. For every Citizen Kane there is 100,000 other movies that are awful. For every great video game, there are 100,000 others that stink.
We can misuse any of those formats to isolate ourselves away from personal real relationships. If you read incessantly behind closed doors you are just as unengaging with culture as a 12 year old playing Halo for hours on end.
Flynn is attacking this from the wrong way in my opinion.
We’d still have the same problem without video games and without technology. We had it then. How many kids actually liked reading Frankenstien in the 1820s or even the 1920s? I bet NONE. I hated reading it high school. It’s boring. Dull and boring. That’s why they invented baseball…
Sure, it’s very easy in the digital age to isolate oneself away from personal real relationships.
However, the only book that has any redeeming value in the end, is the Word of God.
War and Peace is just as frail as Zelda.
If you want kids to regain an appreciation for literary works, you should start them with what they love to read, not with what they find boring. You don’t teach the guitar by starting a beginner with genres of music he hates. You find the things he loves to listen to. Then the appreciation and commitment will expand far easier into other genres.
I hated reading in high school, because aside from Poe and a few others, the books were dull and boring. And why bother reading Jane Eyre, when I can grab the cliff notes…
And the biggest reason why kids don’t like to read books these days, imho, is not because video games are any more fun, but because their parents probably never read to them.
Report comment to moderator
“By the way, you folks are the ones who crowned him Messiah. You desperately needed some kind of anti-Christ.”
And Dems desperately wanted an anti-Bush.
Guess what you got. BUSH. Only worse actually.
Obama has only spent more, warred just as much if not more, abused his political office without consent, and continues to pass legislation like the hated patriot act that begins to strip away at civil liberties.
The man signed the NDAA over New Year’s.
Where is the outcry from the people, Dems and Reps on this?
Wake up, quit drinking the Kool-Aid. Obama is Bush times 10. And he hasn’t done ONE SINGLE thing that is even in line with liberal views.
So either 1. You’re blind or 2. Liberals are hypocrites.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not so much technology as it is the breakdown of the traditional family that is behind the current erosion and/or demise of our overall intelligence in America.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see technology itself as a danger, but I am rather neutral toward it and toward the over-extended promise some presume it offers for the future. I think it was Thoreau who said about technological progress: “Improved means to an unimproved end.”
I am more interested in trying to understand and improve the end of man, not just the means.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn @23 – your last sentence is completely correct. A couple of my family took early childhood education courses and they were told that studies showed a direct link between parents reading to their children and children reading on their own.
I also agree about the choice of books in school. I was homeschooled and read what I wanted, but the books my parents said they had to read in school were some of the last I got around to, because they were dull and boring to a child’s imagination – and every time I’ve tried to read Frankenstien, I’ve quit after a couple of pages because it was so boring (this from someone who has read both Bleak House and Our Mutual Friend at least five times). Some classics last better than others.
Report comment to moderator
Raging immorality and immaturity (regardless of age) is what is eroding our wisdom and intelligence, not technology. Hollywood is a huge evil-promoting culprit that deserves our scorn more than the mere tools they use to promote their evil.
Reality shows are poorly named and a huge waste of human waking hours.
Report comment to moderator
#4 – “Nah, the masses don’t need no stinkin’ education.”
I disagree with ARCADIA. We all need a good education. Every child needs to be well home-schooled whether he or she also goes to a school or not.
Anyone who turns up his/her nose at science or medicine is worse than silly. What I dislike is the fraudulent abuse of science we see coming from the left for political and financial gain on false pretenses. The hoaxes that liberals have foisted upon us in the false name of science are morally bankrupt.
And anyone who turns up their nose to moral guidance and/or answers is even sillier than those who turn up their nose to science.
Report comment to moderator
THORN wrote; “I don’t see how a book or a video game can be any more superior over the other when misused.”
I do. They are very different tools. Video games tend to sharpen us in terms of mechanics and matters of process. In the best of instances, they can help us develop the sort of intelligence that a game of chess can enhance. They also entertain (for good or ill). They can help us hone motor skills while accomplishing an attributed goal.
Books, however, help us think through ideas, concepts and higher principles. Books connect us with real human beings who have experienced real life in times and places we have never known or seen. If your are striving to attain a higher understanding of reality, of history, of humanity, of truth, and of how to develop character, read a book.
Report comment to moderator
THORN wrote; “However, the only book that has any redeeming value in the end, is the Word of God.”
I don’t believe this. The word “only” is the problem. I agree that the book with the MOST redeeming value by far is the Bible. No other book originated from same inspiration by God that gave us the Bible. But I have found many other books extremely valuable in addition to the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I am amazed at how tech-savvie the younger people are at work. I’m not dumb-dumb about it, but they are very quick, and many of them know exactly where to go in a computer to accomplish something.
Parents need to be more involved in their child’s education. Doing homework, taking them places and doing things with them that enhance what they learn in school.
Report comment to moderator
Phos, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce will never die.
Report comment to moderator
I love the digital age. I have been downloading children’s books in German and French to practice my vocabulary prior to traveling to Europe. How wonderful!
We live in a time of massive information and knowledge. The book of Daniel predicted such a time, in the latter days, knowledge would be increased, apparently in a way unlike anything before it.
The problem is not that people are dumb or that information is lacking. The problem is that there is no discernment. So much of the information is false and there is no love of truth to help sift through it all.
I was watching MSNBC last night and I seriously don’t think I heard a single thing that was true. I watched Hardball with Chris Matthews and he interviewed Gingrich. When he was done he and his buddies completely ignored every word Gingrich spoke and went on for quite a while just hitting left-wing talking points, none of which were even remotely true.
I also watch Al Sharpton, who likewise said not one word that was true. He kept saying over and over that Republicans want to turn back 100 years of progress and for grandmothers to not get medicine and for children to starve. Seriously?
So, the problem is not that kids these days aren’t smart. They are simply not being given the tools or desire to discern what is true.
Report comment to moderator
#32 I agree NJL. I was working with a young guy today who is still in college. He is working for 3 weeks while on break. He was smart as a whip and was suggesting things us old timers didn’t know about. It is encouraging to see. What a pleasure to work with these young people! They need guidance, but they have so much energy. Wow, just look at ‘em go!
Report comment to moderator
One of the fourteen year olds just came to me and gave me a game he got for Christmas from his sister who does not live here. Turns out it can access the internet and he realized it was not in his best interest. Very proud of him. A hard thing to do and something he could well have gotten away with as I did not even know he had the game.
Report comment to moderator
mumsee – what was the game?
Report comment to moderator
NJL @33:
Mumsee – Good for him!
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, Nintendo DS.
Phos, he is growing up!
Report comment to moderator
I’d be curious if anyone could produce some non-anecdotal evidence that Americans are, as a society, getting “dumber” over time. Or even “more ignorant”.
Report comment to moderator
http://g.co/maps/mu9sk
Report comment to moderator
Can you produce any non-anecdotal evidence that they are getting smarter?
Report comment to moderator
Good one, ODannyBoy
Report comment to moderator
JM:
Every child needs to be well home-schooled whether he or she also goes to a school or not.
Anyone who turns up his/her nose at science or medicine is worse than silly. What I dislike is the fraudulent abuse of science…
Absolutely: Every child is entitled to be taught the ignorance, intemperance, and superstitons of his parents. We must insist on it. We have no need of consistent curricula, basic historical knowledge or understanding of the social sciences. JM, half the parents I know have a hard enough time with potty training, much less presenting a full blown educational program to their kids.
As for science, the most serious abuse of science has always come from religion, which almost always perceives new learning as a threat to its sovereignty over knowledge. The fights over creationism, evolution, visiting doctors when kids are sick, HPV vaccination, stem cell research, psychiatry and the like are just the last desperate fingernail scrapings in the long tragic history of religion’s historical attempts to cling to it’s ancient flawed texts.
As is its opportunistic opposition to professionally trained educators of any kind.
Drill: If one simply coldly and objectively views the present condition and trajectory of the human race as a whole, and allows for (or accepts) no supernatural or revelatory purpose for human existence, the future is utterly bleak and hopeless.
Extinction is indeed inevitable. As is, eventually, the end of the entire universe and the stoppage of what we call time. But that makes a lousy excuse for doing nothing, bowing and scraping, or, worse still, annihilating others who disagree with you about the unprovable.
Report comment to moderator
Have to tell you, Arcadia — all you would teach a child is anger and negativity.
Report comment to moderator
Can you produce any non-anecdotal evidence that they are getting smarter?
Sure can’t. But, then, I’m not claiming that Americans are getting smarter. Cal Thomas is claiming they’re getting dumber and/or less knowledgeable.
Report comment to moderator
Here ya go:
http://www.saratogafalcon.org/content/us-education-falling-behind-those-other-countries
Report comment to moderator
The glaring grammatical errors in that piece were quite comical. I expect people on here to make mistakes, but writing for a living should get something more.
Anyway, why do universities have to teach high school courses?
Report comment to moderator
#46 Buddy “Cal Thomas is claiming they’re getting dumber and/or less knowledgeable.”
Is he? His point isn’t that people are dumber, but lacking intellectual depth. This shallowness leads to a dumbing down of the political process. The politicization of education shifts the focus from classical learning to political compliance. Multiculturalism, environmentalism and a political agenda take the place of actual education.
Political campaigns have always been nasty, but at least they used to discuss actual issues. Debates had substance. Modern political campaigns are without substance. Have we ever had a president so fluent in untruths as we have now? Yet his popularity percentage is in the 40’s. Fox News is devoid of substance, but CNN and MSNBC peddle an agenda which is substantially not true.
Has a political education led to the acceptance of a political world view which barely resembles reality? The average American can barely find America on a map and knows little about issues which are important to the country. Many Americans get their political news from comedians.
The issue is not whether Americans are dumber, but shallower and less capable of discerning what is true.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: And you would teach what? The 109th Psalm?
Report comment to moderator
Here ya go:
Did you actually read that article? It presents no data whatsoever, other than to mention that the U.S. is behind China, India and Japan on “international education tests”. Which ones? We don’t know; the article doesn’t tell us. How has the U.S.’s position changed over time? We don’t know; the article doesn’t tell us. In other words, it’s not really relevant to the question of whether Americans are “dumber” or “less well educated” (relative to other countries) than they once were.
Is he? His point isn’t that people are dumber, but lacking intellectual depth.
Thomas writes:
Evidence of the dumbing-down of America is everywhere.
Flynn calls the digital age … “Idiotville,” because it has made us less intelligent.
Report comment to moderator
in re:30
Ever played a video game JM?
The fact is, many of the best games, have wonderful story lines with amazing characters, and great development. Many take old history, old venues and recreate them before your eyes.
If you think that they don’t help kids think through concepts and ideas, you’d be poorly mistaken. Just like a good movie can do the same, video games can do just as much as well.
“But I have found many other books extremely valuable in addition to the Bible.”
All things will fade away, except that which is in Christ. That means books, games, movies, even the earth. Books aren’t any more or less useful than any other form of media…
Report comment to moderator
Phos — what I’ve learned is that some of the books (Frankenstein being a particular example) that were “too boring” to get into, paid off if you stuck them out long enough.
Reading, even pleasure reading, shouldn’t always be “fun” if you want to get the full value of literacy.
Of course this isn’t always true. Some books just don’t click. I plan to live out my natural life never picking up Moby Dick again. But it is usually worth disciplining yourself to get past the first few pages, giving the book a chance to grab hold of you.
Full disclosure — I didn’t make it through Frankenstein until I was past 40. But I’m glad I did.
And Arcadia, thank you for another episode of “Willful Misunderstanding Theater.” It never disappoints.
Report comment to moderator
I think a lot of the problem, in politics especially, is that the media has largely divided into liberal and conservative, so that nobody has to hear a point of view they don’t agree with, if they don’t want to.
I am struck by how many political debates seem to feature people with completely different understandings of reality. If the conservatives get all their information from Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and World, while the liberals are watching MSNBC and reading Mother Jones, you end up with people who almost literally live in different worlds.
Report comment to moderator
#51 Buddy, Cal explains what he means by dumb, and it isn’t a lower IQ. He explains that he means intellectual laziness. Have you ever watched Jay-Walking where Jay Leno asks people on the street questions like, “Who was the first president?” Here is a study by National Geographic where 1/3 didn’t know where Lousiana is and nearly 2/3 didn’t know where Iraq is.
What else except civic ignorance could explain a nation which falls for statements straight from the White House which are patently untrue? The White House says today that,
Really? Romney is an extremist? The article went to cite a whole list of things that were patently untrue. Yet, less than half of Americans know this or care. What would you call that?
Report comment to moderator
“paid off if you stuck them out long enough.”
Ummm nope, not for me. I finished that one, hoping that it would get better.
It didn’t.
It wasn’t the worst I ever read, but I hardly see why it should be considered a classic, other than the original creation of the Frankenstein monster.
Report comment to moderator
Snagmtnsage, if you are still on this thread, just wanted to say I loved your poem. Excellent! Since you posted it I did not think you would mind if I read it–with attribution of course–to a group of college students I am teaching on how to preach the gospel. Thanks in advance.
Report comment to moderator
I read Frankenstein (in my thirties) and don’t remember any feelings about it one way or the other; it was recommended by a lit professor as nothing like what has been done with it, and I eventually read it.
Moby Dick I did get through, but no, never again for me either. Hunchback of Notre Dame is one of only a handful of books I’ve started and haven’t finished–I needed a new prescription for my glasses and the edition I was reading had tiny print and was a struggle. More than 100 pages in (100 pages of small print) I realized I still didn’t know what was going on, and I still didn’t care, and it wasn’t worth the eyestrain, so I stopped.
I think literacy IS different than being good with other forms of media. If nothing else, God chose to communicate with us through written language. Ability to read is thus valuable, and words are what sets humans apart from animals in communication. A rat or a monkey might be able to be trained to be good at video games; it takes a human to be literate.
Report comment to moderator
You can train them to push buttons, but they wouldn’t get the story lines. Nor would they be able to accomplish complicated puzzles/goals.
Honestly, I’ve played some games that had far better story and character development, than most books, and the literacy and reading comprehension is important. They are fewer and farther between than say books or even movies, but we’ve only had games significantly for 25 years compared to 80 for movies and centuries for books.
The movie Up in 10 minutes accomplished a profound story in a far better way without words really than what Stephanie Meyer can even do through several books.
with vampires and werewolves.
Report comment to moderator
Have you ever watched Jay-Walking where Jay Leno asks people on the street questions like, “Who was the first president?” Here is a study by National Geographic where 1/3 didn’t know where Lousiana is and nearly 2/3 didn’t know where Iraq is.
This is the prototypical example of anecdotal evidence. First of all, asking a few people questions on the street isn’t a valid measure of the country’s overall ignorance. Second of all, it doesn’t tell us how the “ignorance level” has changed over time.
Also worth noting that Flynn, quoted by Thomas, used the words “less intelligent”. That has a clear meaning. So if he actually meant “intellectually lazy” then the words “less intelligent” were chosen in error.
Report comment to moderator
I debated whether to post this on here, where it has at least some “relevance” (people who are asking the wrong questions are expecting us not to think through what they say) or on Whirled Views, where it may be more likely to be read, and I’m posting it on both.
Yesterday I read two articles online that remind me that anything can be “spun”; it depends on who is asking the questions, and whether they are asking the right questions.
One addressed a study in which it was shown that mothers of young children are happier if they work part-time (up to 32 hours a week). Working full-time actually doesn’t diminish their happiness, either, but it leads to a bit more stress about juggling responsibilities of home and work.
Nobody bothered to ask, “Is a mother’s happiness the most important element in her life decisions?” Haven’t mothers from time immemorial found satisfaction (not necessarily happiness) in being willing to sacrifice for the good of their children? The children’s well-being was absolutely irrelevant to this particular survey. But woe to the family whose mother (or father) thinks only, or even primarily, of her own happiness.
The second article was speaking of some state that is giving free condoms on request to tweens and teens–11 to 17. (They mail them, and a link to an online resource that shows in great detail how to use them, male or female condoms.) The article was taking issue that a lot of parents are up in arms at the idea of free condoms for kids as young as 11, apparently no parental permission and no questions asked. And the article asked sarcastically whether “Should 11-year-olds be having sex?” was the wrong question. It turned the question around (this is from memory) to “Which would you rather have, 11-year-olds having sex without protection or 11-year-olds having sex with protection? Thought so.”
Here’s a different question: “Which would you rather have, a society that treats as normative 11-year-olds having sex, or one that treats it as a sorrowful thing and works to teach those children greater wisdom?” Does anyone really trust 11-year-olds to watch videos online and follow them correctly every time, and to be thereby protected from pregnancy, disease–and heartache–for however many years they have irresponsible sex? Do we really want a society in which children start sleeping around before their teen years, in which an 18-year-old has already slept with two dozen people and had three abortions and two STDs? Is that really preferred to a society that promotes abstinence as a virtue? Mailing condoms to 11-year-olds is a little too much like telling them how to counter the effects of poison without encouraging them not to drink poison at all.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA wrote; “Every child is entitled to be taught the ignorance, intemperance, and superstitons of his parents.”
Sorry you feel that way.
ARCADIA wrote; “We have no need of consistent curricula, basic historical knowledge or understanding of the social sciences.”
Again, I disagree. I actually believe in education, ARCADIA.
ARCADIA wrote; “As for science, the most serious abuse of science has always come from religion, which almost always perceives new learning as a threat to its sovereignty over knowledge.”
That’s pure bigotry, ARCADIA. I have known and loved people of faith all my 57 years and they show tremendous interest in learning. My own life motto is; “If you love to learn, you’ll learn to love.”
ARCADIA, your uninformed sweeping bigotry against religion just poisons the discourse. When you speak for yourself, I may disagree but you add to the interest on this blog. But when you try to characterize the bleifs of others and lump groups or categories together for re-definition on your terms, you fall into tremendous error and reveal rank bigotry.
Report comment to moderator
The last two paragraphs above were not supposed to be italicized.
Report comment to moderator
XION #55 The White House says today that . .
The news story reports nothing from the White House, let alone “straight from the White House.”
The comments to which XION refers come straight from the heartland of America, One Prudential Plaza, Chicago, headquarters of Obama for America.
Obama is the first incumbent president to base his reelection campaign outside Washington.
Moreover, campaign manager Jim Messina didn’t say Romney was an extremist. Outré flip-flopper certainly and liar according to Newt Gingrich, but Messina’s remarks were about the agenda, not the candidates personally.
“No matter who the Republicans nominate, we’ll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win — vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman’s right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.’
XION #55 is untrue.
Report comment to moderator
I congratulate REpublican extremists on their Iowa victories, whatever faction of their party ultimately prevails. All the candidates promise an agenda that is the total opposite to whatever Obama stands for — even Romney. How clarifying! We’re going to have an election that will accept or reject Republican ideology and policy.
THOMAS’ columns are always silly. The political party with the broader and deeper comprehension of the Chaucerian mind isn’t the Tea Party.
Report comment to moderator
For me the most important question is not whether people are becoming more or less intelligent. It seems that what people are learning and how they are using that knowledge is a more important issue. We see all around us illustrations of obviously intelligent people who use their intelligence for destructive rather than constructive ends. And we also see obviously unintelligent people who are much more positive than negative. From my perspective the primary issue is which spirit a person allows to govern the use of their intelligence.
Report comment to moderator
@53: Boring is perhaps a too shallow description of what I meant. The main character was one with whom I felt wholly unsympathetic. I am aware that the author intended the whole to be a parable on the dangers of misusing science, so I understand the reason she made Frankenstien into such an egotist, but I really couldn’t care about the fictional fate of someone who operated in such pride and arrogancy.
Report comment to moderator
58 & 59: I agree with Thorn that some movies and games can convey just as much narrative of emotion and character as books. However, that is as far as it goes. Pictures, gestures and actions are always open to misinterpretation. The great Russian movie director Einsentien once performed an experiment showing different shots of a battlefield, a happy home, etc., all followed by the picture of a woman’s face. Viewers interpreted the woman’s emotion as sad, happy, etc. based on what had come before, but it was exactly the same picture in each case.
Words have a solidity that pictures do not. It is less easy to misinterpret them. It is clear that they are extremely important to God. Christ is called the Word, and there are many promises in the Bible that the word of God will endure. When men rebelled against God at Babel, it was their words that He confounded to break up the rebellion. Someone compared the fuss over technology substituting books to what people must have thought when books substituted scrolls, but both scrolls and books contained written words. Technology substitutes symbols, pictures and gestures for words.
Someone who worked at a school for the deaf told me that children who learned sign language had a terrible time learning to read, because they could not associate their pictorial signs with the written word. I am concerned that technology may have a similar effect on the general population.
Report comment to moderator
“I think literacy IS different than being good with other forms of media. If nothing else, God chose to communicate with us through written language. ”
I agree with this in the first sentence, a bit less in the second.
God chose to communicate orally, and then the words were written down (in inspired manner) later, at least as far as the Old Testament goes. (Most of the New Testaments was created as written documents; that difference is interesting food for thought.) For most of history, “written language” was meaningless to most people, and it actually still is. Even most people in the world who are literate in some official language frequently do most of their communication in a language which is not written, or is only rarely written. And yet throughout history, God’s word has been passed down through reading and memorization and teaching.
So I think “God chose to communicate with us through written language” is an overstatement.
That said, I also agree that written language, and the reading of that language, has benefits that other forms of communication do not. It should not be either/or, but it should most especially not be either/or at the expense of written language.
Report comment to moderator
#52 Thorn. I can’t help it, but I’m a “Myst” nut.
Report comment to moderator
Another Myst fan chiming in here.
Report comment to moderator
And no, monkeys couldn’t play it. Not at all.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl (58): I read “Notre Dame de Paris” in a translated version (sorry, I checked it our from our library and I do not know the translator) and I thought it was certainly one of the most gripping masterpieces written, almost on a level with Charles Dickens. I realize that I probably owe most of my evaluation to the translator. Yes, it’s long and yes, it’s difficult and requires perseverance, but for me, I can’t forget it. Same for “Les Misérables” by the same author, which comes in at almost 1500 pages of small type, paperback. If you’re a sensitive person I defy you to read this final paragraph without being moved. (Of Jean Valjean.)
–Ken Bland
Report comment to moderator
Allen Wrench @73 – I haven’t been able to read Notre Dame de Paris through yet (only read it in libraries while waiting for people) but I thoroughly enjoyed reading Les Miserables. I’m now trying to read it in French (I’m about halfway through) and I’ve learned just how much can be lost in translation. So many expressions and idioms can only be adequately conveyed in their original tongue. I think that is why so many people do not immediatly relate to such great novels as those by Victor Hugo or Leo Tolstoy.
Report comment to moderator
#64 Scroop, so lemme get this straight. Are you saying that Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff in Washington for two years, whose office was just 41 steps from the Oval Office and who is now Obama’s personal campaign manager does not speak for Obama because he opened a new Obama headquarters in Chicago?
Are you saying Obama would disagree with any of it? Obama has said far worse. The Republicans plan, Obama says, boils down to this: ‘Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.’ That is not the “Republican Plan”. Therefore it is false, untrue. It is a lie. Idiotville is where people live who believe these lies.
Report comment to moderator
And another Myst fan here. Mindless video games may be in the majority, but Cal needs to try intelligent games like Myst, Rhem or Obsidian before writing them off as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
The crooks are in Chicago. Where else would Obama’s base be?
Report comment to moderator
#75 Jim Messina has not for a year spoken straight from the White House for President Obama. He speaks from Chicago for candidate Obama, no more, no less. You shouldn’t have said, “straight from the White House.” More importantly, Messina called the party that’s pushing the agenda extremist, not the candidates personally. It’s too bad for you that he didn’t, because then next Summer you’d be able to say, “Look, we didn’t nominate an extremist, after all.” So it’s worth it to me to point out that the potshot was against the party’s agenda, and Obama has stayed out of the mudslinging among the personalities.
Did you see where The Economist today agrees with Messina about the “extremist” agenda?
SAILS says Romney needs to talk further right and presumably call Obama a fascist, anti-colonial pan-Africanist, communist baby killer and destroyer of marriage between a man and a woman.
Report comment to moderator
#78 Jim Messina has not for a year spoken straight from the White House for President Obama. He speaks from Chicago for candidate Obama, no more, no less.
Um, the president and the candidate are the same person. And Jim Messina speaks for the man in the White House no matter where he is physically located. You are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Either way, what Messina and what Obama said are untrue.
Report comment to moderator
PHOS #74 – I’m only in Tome I. Don’t you love M. Myriel?
Report comment to moderator
XION, do you believe that if Obama’s not defeated he will shoot you in the back as you attempt to excape the country?
Report comment to moderator
Either way, what Messina and what Obama said are untrue.
That’s a different assertion. Neither said what you said one or the other said.
Report comment to moderator
@80: Yes, he is an ideal of a life well lived in service to others.
Report comment to moderator
#81 “XION, do you believe that if Obama’s not defeated he will shoot you in the back as you attempt to excape the country?”
Probably not me, but Obama has just signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that authorizes the president to use military force to capture, detain, torture and kill Americans at home and abroad. The Destroyer has already authorized the assassination of American citizens and liberals are curiously fine with it.
Report comment to moderator
#84 – I know it’s primary season and social conservatives only engage on their topics, on their terms.
I was trying to ask you about your theory that liberals, not conservatives, shoot escaping citizens in the back. Executive detention was a neocon/Bush policy. Obama continued but didn’t initiate, and he wouldn’t have (according to VP Cheney). Lamentably, Obama failed to abrogate the fascism of his predecessor. (Liberals have done a great job of fighting fascism in other countries, but that’s not exactly standing up to the evil in their own society.) Your point is a serious one, but my question to you is still valid. You’ve opined that liberals by nature would enforce an authoritarian regime by deadly force against dissenters, so I think it’s fair for me to ask if that you think that includes Obama.
Report comment to moderator
#84 “You’ve opined that liberals by nature would enforce an authoritarian regime by deadly force against dissenters, so I think it’s fair for me to ask if that you think that includes Obama.”
Obama has already done so and will continue to do so. Left wing Utopianism like communism, socialism and fascism are necessarily contrary to liberty. Look at all of the left-wing societies which murdered their own citizens in the 20th century.
Obama calls everyone who disagrees with him his enemy. Will he kill them? Doubtful, but in his own mind he knows he now has the power to do so.
Bush was not a fascist, since fascism is ‘national socialism’. Socialism is not right-wing. Fascism is an authoritarian collectivist economic system run by state controlled labor unions. Which is the party of collectivism and state run labor unions in America? The right wing, well true conservatives anyway, stand for individualism and minimal power of the state.
The motto of fascists and liberals is the same, “All for the state and nothing outside of the state”.
Report comment to moderator
I am tired of hearing that Obama didn’t initiate this or that. He continues it when he could stop it. He doesn’t stop it. That should not be excused and justified. Obama has certainly taken a step towards, indeed more than one, authoritarianism.
Report comment to moderator
That’s true NJL. Lefties say Obama inherited the Patriot Act, except that he kept all of it and is trying to add more, like tracking every cell phone in America and reading private emails.
And whether or not Bush had the power to assassinate Americans, he didn’t do it. Obama has actually done it and has given himself the power to do even more.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t be deceived: Obama is no more a fascist than Bush—and no less. And Obama couldn’t have taken any step toward passing the NDAA or the Patriot Act without his counterparts on the other side of the aisle.
Report comment to moderator
America has become an Idiocracy in the sense that at least half of the country is willing to violate all of their principles when they gain power. It is ‘agenda uber alles’. Obama usually does precisely the opposite of what he says, yet his supporters cheer all the more. What sort of psychology is at play here?
Report comment to moderator
“I must have the blue pages!!”
Report comment to moderator
The people who gain positions of power are living their principles. They just don’t have a problem lying to the rest of us to get there. We may not get the government we want in the US, but we get the government we deserve.
Report comment to moderator
#85 Scroop “You’ve opined that liberals by nature would enforce an authoritarian regime by deadly force against dissenters, so I think it’s fair for me to ask if that you think that includes Obama.”</i.
What I actually said is that government laws are backed by deadly force so why do liberals insist on giving the government more and more power? If a corporation does something you don't like you can go somewhere else. If you don't like what the government says, there is no place to run. A man with a gun will force you to do it.
The fact that Obama goes around killing Americans without due process is beside the point. Most citizens, for now, don't need to worry about that. But every time we choose a government solution over a private one, we are empowering people with guns to take away our liberty.
Report comment to moderator
#85 Scroop “You’ve opined that liberals by nature would enforce an authoritarian regime by deadly force against dissenters, so I think it’s fair for me to ask if that you think that includes Obama.”
What I actually said is that government laws are backed by deadly force so why do liberals insist on giving the government more and more power? If a corporation does something you don’t like you can go somewhere else. If you don’t like what the government says, there is no place to run. A man with a gun will force you to do it.
The fact that Obama goes around killing Americans without due process is beside the point. Most citizens, for now, don’t need to worry about that. But every time we choose a government solution over a private one, we are empowering people with guns to take away our liberty.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Obama usually does precisely the opposite of what he says, yet his supporters cheer all the more. What sort of psychology is at play here?
A better question is why you continue to make silly claims like “his supporters cheer all the more” when they’re not true.
Anecdotally, I was an enthusiastic Obama supporter in 2008. As he as built up a record of breaking pretty much every important promise he made I have not “cheered all the more,” I have grown increasingly frustrated.
When he signed the NDAA, I did not “cheer all the more.” I declared that was the final straw and he had just lost my vote.
I also can tell you that pretty much every other Obama fan from 2008 that I know has come to the same conclusion as I have.
I have not seen any opinion polls conducted since that bill was signed — it’s been less than a week so there probably hasn’t been time — but I’ve also heard no one in the punditocracy defending it either.
Other than Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin, pretty much everybody seems to think this is an awful idea. So the more pressing question is, why do you have this pathological need to repeatedly insist that Obama’s one-time supporters will put up with anything he does, when it’s demonstrably not true?
Report comment to moderator
XION – You seem to argue that Obama will shoot escapees in the back because he has already used deadly force against dissenters. Could you provide an example of Obama’s use of deadly force against dissenters?
How do you assess Cheney’s criticism of Obama as too weak to initiate and practice the necessary policies of torture and executive detention?
Report comment to moderator
XION — torture and executive detention are fascist policies. You say W. wasn’t fascist because only socialists are fascists. Why wouldn’t you call W. a socialist? He twisted arms in an extraordinary session to jam one of the largest entitlement programs ever, he incurred massive deficits, and he bailed out Wall Street, all of which the Tea Party characterizes as socialist policies.
Report comment to moderator
#94 “When he signed the NDAA, I did not “cheer all the more.” I declared that was the final straw and he had just lost my vote.”
There may still be hope. Care to offer who may now have your vote?
Report comment to moderator
Five: I don’t know yet. Romney or Paul maybe. But I also would consider voting third party or just sitting out.
And that would be a shame — I’ve voted in every presidential election since 1984, the first one for which I was old enough — but I see nobody really in the running this time that I can enthusiastically support.
Report comment to moderator
I might vote for Kotlikoff just for the heck of it. He’s like a less dogmatic version of Ron Paul with a lower dose of crazy and no newsletter baggage.
My vote in the general election doesn’t count given where I live, so I’m free to vote for “whoever”. In the Republican primary I may vote for Paul simply as a protest vote against the eventual nominee (which won’t be Paul).
Report comment to moderator
What sort of psychology is at play here?
This is the moderate dominion in Democratic politics. Obama thinks that independent voters will love him if he triangulates between the supposed evils of the Democrats and Republicans.
Presumably, Democrats are weak and Republicans are strong. Therefore, Obama can’t afford to be characterized by VP Cheney as someone who discards instruments of State power. Obama had to sign the laws to avoid being destroyed by the national security establishment and the Republicans and Conservadems who would certainly make hay.
It’s terrible to have such laws, but everyone knows that Obama is just along for the ride. He maintains the torture chambers but has stopped the “interrogations.” Thus he makes “moderates” feel simultaneously unbesmirched and safe.
This is the psychology of Clinton’s ostentatious execution of the mentally retarded and Obama’s massive deportation of Mexicans. Moderates think, “Oh my God, this is bad enough. Republicans would actually be worse.” In truth, Democrats might be the cruelest implementers of conservative governance. But the true villains are the Idiotville moderates.
Report comment to moderator
“Other than Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin, pretty much everybody seems to think this is an awful idea. So the more pressing question is, why do you have this pathological need to repeatedly insist that Obama’s one-time supporters will put up with anything he does, when it’s demonstrably not true?”
Republicans had to pass it as well right?
The silence is quite loud if you ask me. The lack of media, pundit, etc attention is scary. Reps should have been in a uproar over it, and Dems shouldn’t have been far behind since it entirely compromises citizen liberty and rights.
Congress is busy whining and complaining over a 2% tax cut/increase while this sails right through??
“I also can tell you that pretty much every other Obama fan from 2008 that I know has come to the same conclusion as I have.”
Ready to vote him out of office then?
Report comment to moderator
I never played Myst. I have Skyrim, but the big open world stuff I have a hard time playing through. I need a little bit of direction.
Report comment to moderator
“Obama is no more a fascist than Bush”
Well Obama is Bush times 10, as I said over and over before he was elected.
He spends more, wars more, and goes way beyond the patriot act. Almost every liberal will agree the health bill wasn’t over health by the time it was finished.
Obama has his own agenda, and he is a master campaigner. I don’t even think Pelosi and Reid like him, they’d rather have Hillary who’s a team player. Obama has them squarely under his thumb.
We will be at war with Iran probably before the year is up. And it wouldn’t surprise me that if Obama gets re-elected, that he finds someway to abolish the 2 term limit…
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: The silence is quite loud if you ask me. The lack of media, pundit, etc attention is scary. Reps should have been in a uproar over it, and Dems shouldn’t have been far behind since it entirely compromises citizen liberty and rights.
Are you kidding? There’s been a lot of uproar about it … including on the mostly-liberal outlets such as Rachel Maddow and The Daily Show.
The New York Times called for a veto: http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/president-obama-veto-the-defense-authorization-act/
That’s just one example … I’ll refrain from adding links so the comment won’t get held for moderation, but really, it doesn’t take a lot of searching to find the uproar you think isn’t there.
Report comment to moderator
Well until you mentioned those, I haven’t seen much on it except from other friends on facebook.
Not that I watch a ton of news.
I expect Jon Stewart to pick up on it, but he’s not really “news”.
Were a lot of conservatives talking about it?
I mean I was home all week of Christmas/New Year’s and barely heard a peep.
If the NYT didn’t write an article till it already was up for presidential signing, they are late to the game as well.
So the “silence” was relative to other things going on at the time and prior to being at the desk of the president. Most of what you linked seems to be at that point, unless I misunderstand you. Why was 2% more important than this bill?
How does a bill like that ever make it out of committee?? And why would the president sign it, when it flies in the face of multiple Constitutional rights?
Report comment to moderator
And it wouldn’t surprise me that if Obama gets re-elected, that he finds someway to abolish the 2 term limit…
Unlimited terms in office were good enough for the founders, THoRN, so what’s your problem? There would be only one way to abolish the limit, of course. Someway wouldn’t do. Therefore, the procedure would be OK with the founders and it should be OK with you too, in principle.
But its obvious to me that Obama doesn’t want to be reelected. He’s trapped by his obligation not to destroy the Democratic Party and its agenda. He hates being president but he’s afraid he couldn’t live as a failed president, another W. enduring on the ranch at the end of his mind.
Report comment to moderator
I would say, “see I told you so” regarding Obama, considering none of you liberals listened when I and others expressly told you what you were getting, Bush times 10, in Obama.
I would say that, but the other alternative at the time was McCain…and he SPONSORED this bill!!
Sheesh. We are just blind sheep, accepting Romneys and Obamas, McCains and Boehners. The sad thing is, I think they honestly represent America at this point.
Oh, and I see your link is from Nov 30th. My apologies. I still feel there wasn’t much of a peep though in comparison, we didn’t even discuss it on worldmag till recently, right?
Report comment to moderator
“Unlimited terms in office were good enough for the founders, THoRN, so what’s your problem? There would be only one way to abolish the limit, of course. Someway wouldn’t do. Therefore, the procedure would be OK with the founders and it should be OK with you too, in principle.”
And where did that stop Obama from signing the NDAA? I’m fine with the procedure of amendments, and that’s what it SHOULD HAVE TAKEN for the NDAA.
None of the founders served more than two, because two was good enough, regardless of the lack of limits at the time.
“But its obvious to me that Obama doesn’t want to be reelected. He’s trapped by his obligation not to destroy the Democratic Party and its agenda. He hates being president but he’s afraid he couldn’t live as a failed president, another W. enduring on the ranch at the end of his mind.”
? You think he’s trapped? The guy has the Dem Party under his thumb. Pelosi and Reid would replace him with Hillary in a heartbeat if they could, she’s a team player, he’s not.
Don’t be a blind sheep, Scroop. Wake up. This guy doesn’t accomplish anything the Dems want. Oh he says out of his mouth he does, but if his actions followed his words, he’d have closed Gitmo, brought the troops home sooner, actually provided health care for everyone, and stuck the rich 1% with the bill.
You are right though, I don’t think he wants to be president, or have to be reelected. I think he’d prefer to be a dictator/emperor/Caesar etc.
He doesn’t see himself as a failure, he thinks he’s accomplishing his agenda as he sees fit. And it’s not just centralizing power, but centralizing it to the executive branch.
Report comment to moderator
This guy doesn’t accomplish anything the Dems want.
Unfortunately for Democrats, Obama has put the immediate good of the country over the good of the Democratic agenda.
It would have been better for the party to insist on single payer, even if that meant no reform and millions uninsured and millions of others without insurance reforms, and the health care system itself without the online medical records and the effectiveness research.
It would have been better for the party to have another Great Depression rather than an inadequate stim that was 1/3 tax cuts, which had the effect of making government intervention look impotent.
It would have been better for the party to let the Bush tax cuts expire rather than extend unemployment benefits which had the effect of defusing social opposition to Republicans.
It would have been better for the party liberals to veto NADA, which would have provoked a right-wing coup.
Rather than centralizing power, Obama has lost power to the primary branch of government, Congress.
Report comment to moderator
He doesn’t see himself as a failure, he thinks he’s accomplishing his agenda as he sees fit. And it’s not just centralizing power, but centralizing it to the executive branch.
If he loses re-election and Republicans abolish ACA and medicare as we know it, he will rightly see himself as a failure.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: How does a bill like that ever make it out of committee?? And why would the president sign it, when it flies in the face of multiple Constitutional rights?
A good question. I wish I knew. Republicans and Democrats alike failed the Republic on this one. And it’s a frightening prospect, and just the latest step on a road we’ve been on since 9/11/01. Each step leads to a worse one, and one must wonder what’s next, or if sanity will regain a toehold.
Every single person in Congress who voted for this monstrosity, and Obama as well for signing it, should be turned out of office at the first chance.
Report comment to moderator
Different forms of Classical Education are increasingly popular in the homeschool community and a few private schools as an antidote to the mindlessness that plagues America. My nieces attend a Classical charter/public school here in AZ, so there’s hope for a small segment of our future society.
“Classical schools are the monasteries of this new Dark Age.” A speaker at a homeschool convention
“Americans are barbarians [in the Greco-Roman sense of the word] with laptops.” Another speaker at another homeschool convention
“Modern men are apes in trousers.” C.S. Lewis from Abolition of Man
I buy books with real educational value through amazon.com’s third party sellers in mint condition usually for pennies (literally) over the cost of shipping. Most have library bindings. Why so cheap and available? The market for books of substance is shrinking. Most kids are stuck with textbooks (distilled, overly simplified, poorly written) for most of their schooling and outside of school few Americans (regardless of age) read much at all. Those that do aren’t usually reading quality books.
Watch the movie Idiocracy for a scarey look at our possible future.
Report comment to moderator
“Unfortunately for Democrats, Obama has put the immediate good of the country over the good of the Democratic agenda.”
? So if his good is better than the Dem agenda, does that mean the Dem agenda wasn’t that good?
“Rather than centralizing power, Obama has lost power to the primary branch of government, Congress.”
You are a fool, Scroop. Obama now has the power to detain anyone. He now has the power to shut down the net (that has passed as well right?) He goes to war without Congressional approval (see Libya).
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH has those powers now. Plain and simple. Congress just handed them over. He does not need their consent to use them.
Don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does. Power is being systematically diverted into his hands.
Report comment to moderator
Obama now has the power to detain anyone.
This isn’t new. W. invented, manufactured, and used this American weapon. Obama agreed to maintain it after promising not to employ torture and attempting to transfer detainees into the ordinary court system. But Obama did not bring this evil upon us.
Perhaps Obama is a coward not to sacrifice his presidency in a conflict with American fascists over the formal abrogation of executive detention. Perhaps his expedience saves the country from worse damage — let’s say war with Iran. Only the political officers in our national security apparatus know. My gut tells me that Obama is under their thumb but that a Republican neocon would further turn the screws.
I’ll ask you the question I asked XION a few posts back: How do you evaluate Cheney’s criticism of Obama over these extraordinary instruments of state power?
I think you’re asking Obama to be a martyr. The guy who deserves to be in jail is the one living on the ranch at the end of his mind.
Report comment to moderator
“This isn’t new. W. invented, manufactured, and used this American weapon. Obama agreed to maintain it after promising not to employ torture and attempting to transfer detainees into the ordinary court system. But Obama did not bring this evil upon us.”
So you are in agreement then that Obama is continuing the evil that you detested about Bush?
That’s like saying it wasn’t Stalin’s fault because Lenin started it…
Yes, the next guy should stop the evil, not continue it. Not expand it.
Even if Obama and Bush thought it was for the right reasons, that they would use it wisely, it reduces the very foundation of checks and balances this country is built on. The next guy is just continuing what the last guy started.
That’s not change. That’s promoting the same thing.
“Perhaps Obama is a coward not to sacrifice his presidency in a conflict with American fascists over the formal abrogation of executive detention.”
How would that sacrifice his presidency?? Would he not gain the support of the people, who vote, if he actually maintained and restored liberty, rather than constrained it?
I could care less about Cheney. And if you haven’t been paying attention, I don’t want another neocon promoting the war machine.
“I think you’re asking Obama to be a martyr. The guy who deserves to be in jail is the one living on the ranch at the end of his mind.”
Should we ask any less of our president, but to stand with wisdom and act against the flow, to be the martyr when it’s the right thing to do?
Why do you give a pass to the guy when you voted for him because he claimed he would be DIFFERENT. A CHANGE. You voted for Bush all over again…and so you stand as a hypocrite if you do not call Obama to account. Either Bush is fine not being a matyr too or Obama is at fault. You can’t have one or the other. I blame them both.
You are right, another neocon would do the same thing he is. McCain authored the NDAA. But that is not justification for Obama to sign it. And it’s the very reason why I refuse to vote for any candidate that would continue to promote this.
Report comment to moderator
SM: This isn’t new. W. invented, manufactured, and used this American weapon. Obama agreed to maintain it after promising not to employ torture and attempting to transfer detainees into the ordinary court system. But Obama did not bring this evil upon us.
This is true, but it was ok with most of the conservatives (not all, but certainly there was no vocal conservative contingent in opposition) when it was a Republican. Those of us who pointed out that the power would continue to be the president’s even when the president was someone they didn’t trust got shouted down.
Obama has not improved things and has in fact worsened them by signing the NDAA, and he deserves to suffer an election loss for that, but it would take more wilfull blindness than I can muster to not see a certain level of hypocrisy among those conservatives who are just now deciding that giving the president such power is a bad thing.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know if it’s hypocrisy so much as in the case with liberals liking Obama’s move here, they just don’t think he would ever misuse it. That’s how many R’s justified Bush’s patriot act. He’s a good guy, he’ll only do good things with it. We trust him.
The point of the american government is to protect against the next guy though. It’s to balance powers and distribute them evenly so that nationwide damage is never accomplished. So that a Hitler or Stalin or Saddam is never able to gain power.
Obama may be a good guy with good intentions, but he’s opening the door wide for the next guy if nothing else.
I’m honestly hoping the courts strike down the NDAA.
Report comment to moderator
Which liberals like it, Thorn? Can you find any online articles saying it’s a good thing? At best I think you’ll find maybe a few tepidly and timidly saying it might not all that bad … I’m not aware of any liberals who actually think it’s good.
The rest of your post I agree with, but I wish you’d lose the assumption that liberals automatically love everything Obama does. It ain’t so.
Report comment to moderator
Ummm it passed the Senate and the House there Conan…what were their reasons? How many Dems voted for it? If that wasn’t their reasoning, I’m scared to think of what else it was…
Arcadia and Scroop excuse the danger as if Obama would never use it or they don’t mind it because “Bush started it”.
I know you don’t love everything Obama does.
I’m surprised any liberal does. Scroop still thinks Obama is under Congressional thumb…so odd, when Obama just practically told the senate they aren’t in session…
Report comment to moderator
I don’t mean in Congress, obviously enough of the Democrats there thought it was ok enough to pass. (Although the actual liberals voted against it.) I mean out the real world.
In the House, the Democrats split evenly, 93 for and 93 against. Republicans were more supportive, 190 for and 43 against
The only record I can find of a Senate vote is on the conference report, so it’s the bill in the final form that Obama signed. There both parties were largely ayes … Dems 45 yes 6 no, Reps 40 yes, 6 no.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-230
But in the real world? Any liberal pundits cheering it? Any liberal blogs saying it’s great? I haven’t seen any.
Report comment to moderator
Well I didn’t mean specifically everyone. Just trying to use an example.
There’s still good people who buy into the Obama hype. There’s still good people who think Rick Perry is a reasonable candidate. :\
Report comment to moderator
So you are in agreement then that Obama is continuing the evil that you detested about Bush
No. Obama is continuing a lesser evil because he’s only continuing the formal claim to evil powers while in practice he abjures the exercise of that wicked authority and attempts various ameliorations, against opposition, such trying the use of domestic trials in place of military commissions.
This distinction is morally significant, in my mind. The continuance is a formality, not a practice.
Moreover, Obama has not continued Bush’s violations of statutory law against surveillance. Lammentably, he didn’t prosecute Bush for felonies, which was grave malfeasance on Obama’s part. Since Obama did not himself break criminal laws, however, it’s fair to assert that he did not continue the “same” evil that we denounced in Bush.
Would he not gain the support of the people, who vote, if he actually maintained and restored liberty, rather than constrained it?
Sadly, no. We cannot put the genie of fascism back in the bottle. We’ve sniffed the line of coke. We’ve fallen for the fantasy of safety through torture. We’re now imprisoned in our own international gulag. The national security apparatus would physically destroy any president who attempted to reverse course. (These are the “thumbs” I referred to.) And people are suckers for all the gratifications that propel fascism. We have millions of citizens in chains, we execute the mentally retarded, and now we deport our own children, out of our hatred of Mexicans, etc.
I still trust Obama to understand and resist the power of this dragon, and he’ll have my trust so long as Republican presidential candidates are floating bloody thoughts about China and Iran.
CONANTHELIBRARIAN – I don’t see how signing an “extension” makes the situation worse. I’m afraid that Obama had to sign to appease a monster that could destroy the country. He needs electoral support, not opposition. He needs the primary branch of government taken out of the hands of the wicked and the proud.
Report comment to moderator
THORN – Obama lacks an ethical basis for abrogating extraordinary powers because early on he decided he could not/would not prosecute his predecessor. According to Glen Greenwald and other liberal critics of Obama, that was the fatal mistake that burned the bridges to sanity. I can understand Obama’s impotence. Putting Bush in prison during an impending Depression would have destroyed the union.
Report comment to moderator
#95 Conan “When he signed the NDAA, I did not “cheer all the more.” I declared that was the final straw and he had just lost my vote.”
I’ll second Fives in #98: maybe there is hope after all. Your statements and of a few other liberals here are the first cracks I’ve seen in the impenetrable castle walls.
Report comment to moderator
#96 Scroop “XION – You seem to argue that Obama will shoot escapees in the back because he has already used deadly force against dissenters. Could you provide an example of Obama’s use of deadly force against dissenters?”
Well, Obama boasted about assassinating an American citizen without due process. However, he won’t go around shooting everyone he calls his enemies, which is about half the country. That wasn’t my point at all.
What I have actually said was that leftism historically has devolved into a police state that shoots people in the back while trying to escape. Just grab any history book on the 20th century and start reading.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, you’ve explained that leftism leads to shooting escapees in the back. But if your warning has anything to do with libertarian socialists and Democrats, you haven’t told us. The example above doesn’t cut the mustard. Obama killed a terrorist fighting America on foreign soil. If you call that guy a “dissenter” trying to escape socialism, I’ll just have to demagogue you. “XION says Al Qaida are dissenters who are being victimized by Obama.”
Has Obama raised your taxes? You deserve to be put on a no-fly list for contempt of court, in my opinion, but I’m sure you’ll get on your flight to Germany without anybody trying to shoot you in the back. If you’re treated with hostility, it will be upon your return. Otherwise, you’ve lost no freedom under Obama. Do you have health insurance? The mandate doesn’t affect you. Are you insuring any adult children? The mandate is affecting you.
If you need to whine about freedom, please discuss 2 million Americns in shackles.
Report comment to moderator
“Obama is continuing a lesser evil…”
Oh so that makes it okay then. I’m so glad it’s a “lesser evil”.
Evil is evil, Scroop.
“Moreover, Obama has not continued Bush’s violations of statutory law against surveillance. Lammentably, he didn’t prosecute Bush for felonies, which was grave malfeasance on Obama’s part.”
What felony? Congress passed the Patriot Act. Bush, unless you have evidence otherwise, only acted under the law as far as we know. He went to war with the approval of Congress. So what felonies would Obama have been able to prosecute?
Obama on the other hand, bombed Libya without congressional approval. He had an American citizen assassinated.
“I still trust Obama to understand and resist the power of this dragon.”
Really? How is Obama so much better than all the people he represents who you think are slaves to this dragon?
“Obama lacks an ethical basis for abrogating extraordinary powers because early on he decided he could not/would not prosecute his predecessor.”
He lacks no such thing. Acting rightly is not dependent on someone else’s prior actions.
Continuing the felonies of which you accuse Bush, makes Obama a felon too. It doesn’t justify him.
Your logic is highly flawed. I honestly can’t believe you would trust a guy WHO DOES THE EXACT SAME THINGS AS BUSH…when you are trying to deride Bush all at the same time.
Report comment to moderator
THORN – I agree with you that evil is evil, but we’ll have to disagree about whether evil is all the same. In my view, to continue a formal claim to the power of executive detention is bad, but it is not the same as actually putting a person in a secret prison. To maintain a torture chamber is bad, but it is not the same as actually conducting an “interrogation.” To keep reading everybody’s email is bad, but it is not the same as reading everybody’s email while that was still a felony. To keep the authority to read everybody’s email is bad, but it is not as bad as first initiating that authority. I think that setting bad precedents is more egregious than not stopping existing practices. The masterminds and corrupters are worse than perpetrators.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
You honestly think that Obama has stopped torture? That there aren’t secret prisons or interrogations?
I guess it’s okay to have prisons if they aren’t secret. I guess it’s okay just to assassinate citizens as long as you don’t torture them. That’s the “nice” evil…
If this guy has had no trouble signing the NDAA, it’s because he’s already involved in these very things you detest.
“To keep reading everybody’s email is bad, but it is not the same as reading everybody’s email while that was still a felony.”
It is to the same!! A felony just describes the level of penalty. It’s not wrong to drink and drive because you might get a DUI, it’s wrong to drink and drive because it’s dangerous in the first place.
If it’s wrong in the first place, whether the penalty exists or not, doesn’t excuse the next guy from doing it and getting away with it. He should recognize that’s it’s wrong, and thus do what is right.
This is like saying it’s not Adam’s fault because Eve ate the fruit and gave it to him. Obama is JUST AS GUILTY.
And you think Bush was the first? Clinton was bombing Sudan and Iraq without Congressional assent as well.
Report comment to moderator
If the positions were reversed you’d be slamming a Rep president for this. You would not give him leeway because the previous Democrat did it, or removed the felony charge.
Quit excusing Obama, when he has more power than anyone to change the very things you detest, and yet all he does is expand them.
Report comment to moderator
THORN – How did you vote in 2000 and 2004?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop thinks that Obama merely maintains Bush’s policies, which isn’t as bad supposedly than initiating them.
Bush did not start an illegal war in secret on foreign soil, Obama did. Bush did not advocate tracking every cell phone in America, Obama did. Bush didn’t call for reading every private email, Obama did. Bush didn’t assassinate Americans, Obama did. Bush didn’t launder trillions through his campaign contributors, Obama did. Bush didn’t nationalize any corporations, Obama did.
Scroop thinks torture is bad, but assassinating people is perfectly fine as long as a Democrat does it.
Report comment to moderator
How did you vote Scroop?
The alternatives were Gore and Kerry. I don’t see how that excuses you.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!