Can we talk about the progress of liberty without mentioning current politics?

[Bluegoat]

I think the liability/complaining parents thing is essentially cultural.  Kind of like not letting school kids climb trees in case they fall (while German school kids are actually encouraged to climb trees.)

 

If we don't like it, we should not be afraid to say it is stupid, to people.  Preferably with more explanation so we don't just sound like grumps.

[TechWife]

 

 

While it's sad that kids can't keep their own meds, there honestly would be way too much abuse.  If mom A isn't pleased with the nurse giving ibuprofen, how is she going to feel when Sally gave it to her child instead?  The school would be responsible because we really are "the parents" when the kids are with us.  It's amazing what schools can get sued for.

 

 

 

Oh, I know why they don't allow it. Due to the stupid decisions of a relatively few people, everyone is punished. 

 

Teenagers should be learning to manage their OTC meds. Because a relatively few people abuse drugs, all teenagers are treated like criminals. 

 

I think kids have far fewer liberties than ever. 

[Pam in CT]

re Andrew Sullivan, and fear v fear-mongering:

Does anyone else find it ironic that, in a thread about one's frustration over political fear-mongering, a article is linked that is essentially more fear-mongering?

 

Perhaps. I initially thought through his introduction, he was going to argue how we are headed toward tyrany in a more general sense. But, a few paragraphs in, he took a hard turn. I would have enjoyed the article so much more (and think it would have better served his original premise) had the made a case against both front runners.

 

You are right that Sullivan, who identifies as a conservative libertarian (though many readers on both sides of the cultural divide find his views exasperatingly difficult to pigeonhole into our neat right-left categories), is afraid.  He's afraid for the principles and (to the OP) liberties he holds dear, and for the future of his adopted nation.  His article focuses on, and parses, and puts into a classical historical context, that fear.

 

The fishmonger sells fish; the fear-mongerer uses fear as a tool to sell a candidate or platform.  At its simplest and most effective, fear-mongering transforms fear (an emotion that is deeply uncomfortable to hold) into righteous anger and blame (emotions that are far more comfortable).  It works on the level of psychology and emotion.

 

That is not, at all, what Sullivan is doing.  He is holding his fear, and attempting to unpack it, and struggling to place what he sees happening today in historical and analytical context.  

 

 

FTR, there is much in the article that I disagree with -- starting with his premise that democracies are uniquely vulnerable to the rise of tyranny.  There certainly as examples of that, as both he and Martha pointed out; but if inclined one can point to many others, in Russia and China and South America just in the modern age.  Personally it seems to me less important how tyrants originally come to power, and more important why at critical moments a critical mass consent to their suspension of liberty, such that the governed consent to the suspension of rule of law and the consolidation of power into rule of a Strong Man.  And like Kinsa and others above, I don't believe that the POTUS has nearly the scope of influence that the apocalypse-criers fear -- even if a candidate with an inclination to suspend liberties and rule of law came to power here, and even if Congress went along (a huge if!), global markets and corporate interests would still serve as very real limits.  

 

But though there is much with Sullivan's argument with which I disagree, I see it as a good faith effort to unpack the fear -- the sense of economic perilousness and security anxieties and cognitive dissonance around inequality --  that is creating receptive conditions for fear-mongering...

 

 

 

Is saying something is a problem to be worried about the same as fear mongering?

 

Saying "If you vote for X and the world will end" is in most cases completely untrue.

 

Saying that there is a significant problem in governance which requires attention, and making a rational argument to that effect, seems a little different. 

 

... which, to my mind, is the opposite of fear-mongering.  

 

[TranquilMind]

Um, actually... have you never heard of in loco parentis?

 

Yes, of course, but do you not understand its limits?  It refers to custodial restraint and coercion, if necessary, since you, the parent handed them over with explicit consent to permit someone else to exercise authority.  Someone has to be able to protect them and in many states, are allowed to discipline them even physically for rule violation.

 

However, it has limitations.   Nowhere is the teacher granted authority to indoctrinate children as to right and wrong with his own values.  He is limited to teaching his academic material.  That is his sole job there, in addition to physical custody that the parent granted. 

 

We all know overstepping occurs, so one can avoid all the blurred lines by avoiding the setting, of course. 

 

[creekland]

Yes, of course, but do you not understand its limits?  It refers to custodial restraint and coercion, if necessary, since you, the parent handed them over with explicit consent to permit someone else to exercise authority.  Someone has to be able to protect them and in many states, are allowed to discipline them even physically for rule violation.

 

However, it has limitations.   Nowhere is the teacher granted authority to indoctrinate children as to right and wrong with his own values.  He is limited to teaching his academic material.  That is his sole job there, in addition to physical custody that the parent granted. 

 

We all know overstepping occurs, so one can avoid all the blurred lines by avoiding the setting, of course. 

 

 

I try to limit my beatings to one or two per day and I always clean up the blood before admin can find it.   :lol:

 

I hate to break it to you, but we're also expected to teach values...  We devote special class time for this.  Why?  Because we live in the real world instead of the ideal world and many students don't actually learn what society considers good values at home - things like responsibility, volunteering, and generally being a good citizen.

 

We don't teach kids exactly what to think politically if that's what you're worried about, but in some classes (like Gov't) we take political topics and discuss them at length - both sides.  The goal is to teach thinking skills, not listening to sound bites.  This year (and any election year) these things can come up in other classes as well.  It's part of life.

 

We also teach about health, and healthy living, etc. 

[Paige]

 

 

I hate to break it to you, but we're also expected to teach values...  We devote special class time for this.  Why?  Because we live in the real world instead of the ideal world and many students don't actually learn what society considers good values at home - things like responsibility, volunteering, and generally being a good citizen.

 

 

 

I'm thankful for teachers like you who try to teach values to the kids in their care. If my kids were in school 8hrs a day, the 8 hours they were in my care and not sleeping would not be enough for me to do my job alone. I want my kids learning values constantly and in all areas of their life and I want them to see that I'm not the only one who cares. I'd much, much rather have some person with good intentions share their values with my child, even if I disagree with them, than to have my kids ignored- for no attempt to be made to teach them all kinds of life lessons beyond academics, and for all misbehavior to be punished but not guided with instruction and correction. My kids would learn the valuable lesson that people care and that good people can have different values. So, thanks, Creekland. 

[creekland]

I'm thankful for teachers like you who try to teach values to the kids in their care. If my kids were in school 8hrs a day, the 8 hours they were in my care and not sleeping would not be enough for me to do my job alone. I want my kids learning values constantly and in all areas of their life and I want them to see that I'm not the only one who cares. I'd much, much rather have some person with good intentions share their values with my child, even if I disagree with them, than to have my kids ignored- for no attempt to be made to teach them all kinds of life lessons beyond academics, and for all misbehavior to be punished but not guided with instruction and correction. My kids would learn the valuable lesson that people care and that good people can have different values. So, thanks, Creekland. 

 

Awe, thanks.   :blushing:   I honestly love my job, esp connecting with the kids and knowing that our community is a better place with more educated citizens in all areas, not just academics.  I've learned a ton too along the way.  

[MaeFlowers]

re Andrew Sullivan, and fear v fear-mongering:

 

 

You are right that Sullivan, who identifies as a conservative libertarian (though many readers on both sides of the cultural divide find his views exasperatingly difficult to pigeonhole into our neat right-left categories), is afraid. He's afraid for the principles and (to the OP) liberties he holds dear, and for the future of his adopted nation. His article focuses on, and parses, and puts into a classical historical context, that fear.

 

The fishmonger sells fish; the fear-mongerer uses fear as a tool to sell a candidate or platform. At its simplest and most effective, fear-mongering transforms fear (an emotion that is deeply uncomfortable to hold) into righteous anger and blame (emotions that are far more comfortable). It works on the level of psychology and emotion.

 

That is not, at all, what Sullivan is doing. He is holding his fear, and attempting to unpack it, and struggling to place what he sees happening today in historical and analytical context.

 

 

FTR, there is much in the article that I disagree with -- starting with his premise that democracies are uniquely vulnerable to the rise of tyranny. There certainly as examples of that, as both he and Martha pointed out; but if inclined one can point to many others, in Russia and China and South America just in the modern age. Personally it seems to me less important how tyrants originally come to power, and more important why at critical moments a critical mass consent to their suspension of liberty, such that the governed consent to the suspension of rule of law and the consolidation of power into rule of a Strong Man. And like Kinsa and others above, I don't believe that the POTUS has nearly the scope of influence that the apocalypse-criers fear -- even if a candidate with an inclination to suspend liberties and rule of law came to power here, and even if Congress went along (a huge if!), global markets and corporate interests would still serve as very real limits.

 

But though there is much with Sullivan's argument with which I disagree, I see it as a good faith effort to unpack the fear -- the sense of economic perilousness and security anxieties and cognitive dissonance around inequality -- that is creating receptive conditions for fear-mongering...

 

 

 

 

... which, to my mind, is the opposite of fear-mongering.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you. It is fear mongering when in his last paragraph he states that a certain candidate becoming president will be an extinction level event for democracy. (I can't do quotes on my phone or I would quote him directly.)

I don't have an issue with his argument per se. I personally think he could have made a much stronger argument if he had stuck with his fears of tyranny and used examples of how either candidate could fulfill that role. It would look less like an attack, for lack of a better word, on a single candidate (and I would feel this way had he used the other candidate as a single example as well). His writing, for me, would have more integrity.

 

Like I said, I thought from his introduction he was writing because he was concerned about tyranny and the direction of our country. I felt a little misled. However, I will fully admit I have no idea who this man is. Maybe I would understand his writing better if I knew more about him and had read his work in the past.

[Pam in CT]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you. 

 

No need to be sorry!  Nothing wrong with disagreement.  I'm much more interested in talking to and reading from people whose ideas are different than mine -- I learn more and grow more from difference.  I already know my own ideas..  :laugh:

 

 

... It is fear mongering when in his last paragraph he states that a certain candidate becoming president will be an extinction level event for democracy. (I can't do quotes on my phone or I would quote him directly.)

I don't have an issue with his argument per se. I personally think he could have made a much stronger argument if he had stuck with his fears of tyranny and used examples of how either candidate could fulfill that role. It would look less like an attack, for lack of a better word, on a single candidate (and I would feel this way had he used the other candidate as a single example as well). His writing, for me, would have more integrity.

 

Like I said, I thought from his introduction he was writing because he was concerned about tyranny and the direction of our country. I felt a little misled. However, I will fully admit I have no idea who this man is. Maybe I would understand his writing better if I knew more about him and had read his work in the past.

 

Well, Sullivan has over the years spoken out pretty vigorously against policies, legislation and executive actions of both parties -- he's a rather complex character who defies easy categorization (although as I said, he defines *himself* as libertarian, which maybe doesn't align easily to either party at the moment).  

 

You are absolutely right that the concern he expresses in that particular article, though, isn't reciprocal.  He may dislike a number of the *policies* of both apparent nominees (I suspect, from other writings of his I've read, he does).  He only sees one of them disregarding the *rule of law itself."  And what he really fears is: why is that message, that attraction to Strong Man tyranny, so resonant at this particular juncture in time. 

 

The article is delving into the WHY.  Why is our society so vulnerable to fear-mongering at this particular moment... and he's trying to place it in context with other junctures in time.  As I said, there's a lot there I don't agree with, as is (ahem) often true when I read his work.  But I would definitely not label it fear-mongering.  Fear-mongering is quite a different thing.  

[Bluegoat]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you. It is fear mongering when in his last paragraph he states that a certain candidate becoming president will be an extinction level event for democracy. (I can't do quotes on my phone or I would quote him directly.)

I don't have an issue with his argument per se. I personally think he could have made a much stronger argument if he had stuck with his fears of tyranny and used examples of how either candidate could fulfill that role. It would look less like an attack, for lack of a better word, on a single candidate (and I would feel this way had he used the other candidate as a single example as well). His writing, for me, would have more integrity.

 

Like I said, I thought from his introduction he was writing because he was concerned about tyranny and the direction of our country. I felt a little misled. However, I will fully admit I have no idea who this man is. Maybe I would understand his writing better if I knew more about him and had read his work in the past.

 

Except I don't think that he believes both candidates would fulfill that role.  So why would he say that?

 

There isn't some kind of logical necessity that means the two alternatives would have the same outcome. 

[Guest]

No need to be sorry! Nothing wrong with disagreement. I'm much more interested in talking to and reading from people whose ideas are different than mine -- I learn more and grow more from difference. I already know my own ideas.. :laugh:

 

 

 

 

Well, Sullivan has over the years spoken out pretty vigorously against policies, legislation and executive actions of both parties -- he's a rather complex character who defies easy categorization (although as I said, he defines *himself* as libertarian, which maybe doesn't align easily to either party at the moment).

 

You are absolutely right that the concern he expresses in that particular article, though, isn't reciprocal. He may dislike a number of the *policies* of both apparent nominees (I suspect, from other writings of his I've read, he does). He only sees one of them disregarding the *rule of law itself." And what he really fears is: why is that message, that attraction to Strong Man tyranny, so resonant at this particular juncture in time.

 

The article is delving into the WHY. Why is our society so vulnerable to fear-mongering at this particular moment... and he's trying to place it in context with other junctures in time. As I said, there's a lot there I don't agree with, as is (ahem) often true when I read his work. But I would definitely not label it fear-mongering. Fear-mongering is quite a different thing.

Fascinating! I don't know anything about Sullivan, but I would probably find many of his writings interesting, from what you describe...and I, too, don't fit neatly into any one political ideology.

 

I do see what Mae Flowers is saying, though. The things he says in the article are some of the kinds of statements I have heard on FB about that candidate. But the things I've seen that are against the other major candidate are similar, but come from a different direction. So, essentially, while I do agree with some basic observations of what is dislikeable about each candidate, I *do* hold more of the view that "the End of Everything" is not going to arrive just because candidate X wins...or Candidate Y wins.

 

I do think it is an interesting thought exercise, though, to ponder why the Strong Man approach is resonating with many, even while it is repugnant to many others.

[creekland]

While listening to MIL's favorite news station during our visit there they had a story on (that they were praising) about a tow truck driver in NJ who stopped for a distressed motorist, then decided not to help her due to a candidate sticker she had on her car.  They interviewed him.  He was proud of his actions.  So were the newscasters.  

 

Way to demonstrate the Good Samaritan in action - at least the first two who walked past.   :glare:

 

They mentioned he had the freedom to do as he did.  Perhaps so.

 

Can't say I was the least bit proud of his using his freedom though.  Can't say it helps our country or world either.

[TranquilMind]

While listening to MIL's favorite news station during our visit there they had a story on (that they were praising) about a tow truck driver in NJ who stopped for a distressed motorist, then decided not to help her due to a candidate sticker she had on her car.  They interviewed him.  He was proud of his actions.  So were the newscasters.  

 

Way to demonstrate the Good Samaritan in action - at least the first two who walked past.   :glare:

 

They mentioned he had the freedom to do as he did.  Perhaps so.

 

Can't say I was the least bit proud of his using his freedom though.  Can't say it helps our country or world either.

 

Wow, unfreakingbelievable. 

 

Who would do that?  Only a complete moron with no moral compass would just leave the woman there because of who she supported as a candidate.  Geez. 

[TranquilMind]

I try to limit my beatings to one or two per day and I always clean up the blood before admin can find it.   :lol:

 

I hate to break it to you, but we're also expected to teach values...  We devote special class time for this.  Why?  Because we live in the real world instead of the ideal world and many students don't actually learn what society considers good values at home - things like responsibility, volunteering, and generally being a good citizen.

 

We don't teach kids exactly what to think politically if that's what you're worried about, but in some classes (like Gov't) we take political topics and discuss them at length - both sides.  The goal is to teach thinking skills, not listening to sound bites.  This year (and any election year) these things can come up in other classes as well.  It's part of life.

 

We also teach about health, and healthy living, etc. 

 

If you mean obvious values that we still manage to share, like not hitting or cursing in school or stealing someone's notebook or saying mean things about others, well then of course.  That's merely what is required to get along in a group.

 

I'm not talking about that.  I am talking about where teachers get on a soapbox and rant on and on about their pet subjects in which rational people have very different views.  Religious values, for example, or perhaps political views.  Even-handed discussion is fine. Indoctrination is not. 

 

[Guest]

http://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-allows-fbi-hack-any-computer-anywhere-if-warrant-454278

 

"With a new rule change in the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedures, which covers search and seizure protocols, federal judges would be able to issue warrants to search computers located ANYWHERE in the world."

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227601-supreme-court-grants-fbi-decentralized-warrants-power-to-hack-suspects-anywhere

Yes.

 

These kinds of things are egregious assaults on liberty.

 

And i believe they will drastically impact our lives sooner than later.

[hornblower]

If you mean obvious values that we still manage to share, like not hitting or cursing in school or stealing someone's notebook or saying mean things about others, well then of course.  That's merely what is required to get along in a group.

 

I'm not talking about that.  I am talking about where teachers get on a soapbox and rant on and on about their pet subjects in which rational people have very different views.  Religious values, for example, or perhaps political views.  Even-handed discussion is fine. Indoctrination is not. 

 

 

Some would argue school IS indoctrination by definition. 

[Bluegoat]

I used to enjoy my ranting teachers.  A few were really eccentric and nutty.  I learned quite a lot from them, which isn't to say I adopted any of their views.

[Pam in CT]

I used to enjoy my ranting teachers.  A few were really eccentric and nutty.  I learned quite a lot from them, which isn't to say I adopted any of their views.

 

:laugh:

 

Me too.

 

And, every so often, I did adopt some of their views.  In a couple cases, it took many years for the ideas to germinate and take hold...

[goldberry]

While listening to MIL's favorite news station during our visit there they had a story on (that they were praising) about a tow truck driver in NJ who stopped for a distressed motorist, then decided not to help her due to a candidate sticker she had on her car.  They interviewed him.  He was proud of his actions.  So were the newscasters.  

 

 

I haven't been able to articulate my thoughts about this topic, but this post helped solidify it.  My mother grew up in WW2 Germany.  When Obama got elected and things started to get really nasty polarized (actually even right before that when the economy first was tanking) she kept commenting that the atmosphere was getting like Germany.  She said the American public can never comprehend how someone like Hitler came into power, but it was the atmosphere of the country that allowed it.  Polarized, frustrated, demoralized.  

 

This is what I hear in Sullivan's article as well. 

 

Then you hear stories like the one above when someone decides not to help a fellow human being because of political ideology. That is more than "a difference of opinion."  Yet what is concerning about the incident is that this behavior would normally be socially censured, but instead is celebrated. How many things are being put out there right now that would normally be censured but are instead being celebrated?

 

It's dangerous.  I think the most dangerous thing is thinking certain things could never happen "because we're America".  

 

ETA, To focus this concern on "this candidate" or "that candidate" is missing the real point I think.  There are many things contributing to this atmosphere and all of them are concerning.  It's not about a candidate.

Edited May 10, 2016 by goldberry

[Bluegoat]

I haven't been able to articulate my thoughts about this topic, but this post helped solidify it.  My mother grew up in WW2 Germany.  When Obama got elected and things started to get really nasty polarized (actually even right before that when the economy first was tanking) she kept commenting that the atmosphere was getting like Germany.  She said the American public can never comprehend how someone like Hitler came into power, but it was the atmosphere of the country that allowed it.  Polarized, frustrated, demoralized.  

 

This is what I hear in Sullivan's article as well. 

 

Then you hear stories like the one above when someone decides not to help a fellow human being because of political ideology. That is more than "a difference of opinion."  Yet what is concerning about the incident is that this behavior would normally be socially censured, but instead is celebrated. How many things are being put out there right now that would normally be censured but are instead being celebrated?

 

It's dangerous.  I think the most dangerous thing is thinking certain things could never happen "because we're America".  

 

ETA, To focus this concern on "this candidate" or "that candidate" is missing the real point I think.  There are many things contributing to this atmosphere and all of them are concerning.  It's not about a candidate.

 

Yes, I think this is true, generally, and that is also what I think is scary.

 

I would saythough, that I think that candidates may choose, as individuals, to take advantage of that climate - clearly that is what Hitler did in your example.  So - the two can come together in some ways.

[creekland]

I used to enjoy my ranting teachers.  A few were really eccentric and nutty.  I learned quite a lot from them, which isn't to say I adopted any of their views.

 

See, this is me and my guys too.  My ps high school kid had teachers whose views differed from his/ours (both directions from us since we're centrists in general) and I honestly never found that to be a problem.  We all considered it good that he had exposure to different folks.  I have no idea how much he may have changed his views due to them.  He's allowed to be himself.  We don't require "mini me's."

 

Then all of mine have friends in college with different views and it just hasn't hurt them at all.

 

I worry about those who live in a bubble thinking only Star Bellied Sneetches have it all correct with their views and those without Stars Upon Thars aren't worthy.

 

I haven't been able to articulate my thoughts about this topic, but this post helped solidify it.  My mother grew up in WW2 Germany.  When Obama got elected and things started to get really nasty polarized (actually even right before that when the economy first was tanking) she kept commenting that the atmosphere was getting like Germany.  She said the American public can never comprehend how someone like Hitler came into power, but it was the atmosphere of the country that allowed it.  Polarized, frustrated, demoralized.  

 

This is what I hear in Sullivan's article as well. 

 

Then you hear stories like the one above when someone decides not to help a fellow human being because of political ideology. That is more than "a difference of opinion."  Yet what is concerning about the incident is that this behavior would normally be socially censured, but instead is celebrated. How many things are being put out there right now that would normally be censured but are instead being celebrated?

 

It's dangerous.  I think the most dangerous thing is thinking certain things could never happen "because we're America".  

 

ETA, To focus this concern on "this candidate" or "that candidate" is missing the real point I think.  There are many things contributing to this atmosphere and all of them are concerning.  It's not about a candidate.

 

:iagree:  100%.  I'd have had equally a WTH moment if the candidate sticker had been different.  

 

Our country is going to have major problems if we have to start completing a checklist of our beliefs (and hope those answers are right) before we can get basic assistance.

 

I would like to think NO ONE would approve of that, but apparently I'm wrong.

 

It's scary.

[creekland]

I had a Texas History professor in college who used to spend Every. Single. Class. expounding on the political work LULAC was doing. NOTHING about the actual content of the syllabus was taught. Nothing. He actually told us that we could read the textbook ourselves to prepare for the exams, but he would spend class time discussing the importance of LULAC.

 

It ticked me off that I paid for that baloney class. I didn't enjoy it at all. I really rather despised that ranting lunatic.

 

Can I ask why you didn't drop the class and take something else?  Or skip the lectures and just read the book to prepare for the exams?  If it's college and not an assigned high school class, it really seems like there were options.

 

Even in the high school where I work, our kids/parents can request teachers they don't want to have. (Request is a formality - it's always honored.)  One can switch classes even after the semester has started if they see a potential conflict.

 

Very little is written in stone.  Very rarely is a class only taught by one teacher.  At our school, French, Physics, and Anatomy come to mind where there is no choice, but the vast majority have choices.

[Valley Girl]

I had a Texas History professor in college who used to spend Every. Single. Class. expounding on the political work LULAC was doing. NOTHING about the actual content of the syllabus was taught. Nothing. He actually told us that we could read the textbook ourselves to prepare for the exams, but he would spend class time discussing the importance of LULAC.

 

It ticked me off that I paid for that baloney class. I didn't enjoy it at all. I really rather despised that ranting lunatic.

 

I didn't mind teachers and professors going off on a tangent once in awhile. But if what you described happened? That kind of thing should be reported to the administration. You're paying a lot of money for these classes. If the professor is not actually going to teach the class you're paying for and instead uses a captive audience to promote his particular agenda, you're being cheated plain and simple. And entitled to a refund. (I know it's too late for your particular situation, but I've no doubt this kind of thing still on.)