Why Johnny Doesn’t Want to Read

by

The other day Instapundit linked an article on the role of public school reading assignments in discouraging boys from taking up reading for pleasure. The subject is familiar to anyone to anyone who read Christina Hoff Sommers’ book on the subject.  In short, K-12 reading assignments don’t match up with boys’ interests. Boys prefer activity-oriented plot-based stories, schools gravitate toward girls’ interests – quoting Sommers, “[p]ersonal narratives full of emotion and self-disclosure.” I’ll have more to say on that later.

This has me waxing (mostly unpleasantly) nostalgic about my own school-age reading assignments. The earliest one I can recall is of A Tale of Two Cities. I remember scarcely anything about London and a few highlights about Paris. Shakespeare is something I could take only in small doses due to the language barrier. I liked the plot synopses and some of the more memorable passages such as Polonius’ advice to Laertes (someone should CGI W. C. Fields into the role of Polonius). One junior high class assigned two entertaining movie scripts – Colossus: The Forbin Project and Escape from the Planet of the Apes. At home my literary gateway to the world was World Book Encyclopedia; I especially loved the maps and the articles on foreign locales and peoples and exotic animals. I did not grow up reading novels or even comic books. In my late teens I tried reading my mom’s Agatha Christie novels, but for some reason I couldn’t quite get into them. 

High school offered (ahem) textbook examples of what’s wrong with school reading assignments. I have finally gotten around to posting Amazon reviews for the three high school reading assignments that turned me off to reading.

Read more

Best Eaten Cold

by

Revenge, as the old saying has it, is a dish best served cold. And revenge may not be the only – or the most dangerous – platter best dished up chilled. That would be the dish of anger – that ice-cold, sullen reservoir of fury in the hearts of every right-of-center, non-elite, law-abiding flyover-country middle American with Tea Partyish inclinations … a dish of anger ready to serve up in the wake of a just-barely unsuccessful political assassination attempt this last weekend.

You see, there is a considerable difference between hot fury and cold. Hot fury is impulsive, immediately violent, reactive and more often misplaced. It’s the unthinking destructive fury of the mob, lashing out indiscriminately. Cold fury, on the other hand, does not manifest itself in such spectacular fashion. Cold fury is focused, calculated, unspectacular; it takes its time, waiting for the optimum moment. Cold fury usually can’t be appeased, once unleashed. As I wrote some time ago, regarding the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance –

“The image of a “vigilante” most usually implies a disorganized mob; lawless, mindlessly violent, easily steered but ultimately uncontrollable. The Vigilance Committee was something much, much worse than that. They were organized, they were in earnest, they would not compromise – and they would not back down.”

Read more

Of Leadership and Courage

by

In the wake of the Trump assassination attempt,  I’ve run across a few posts that raise some…psychopolitical and psychosocial…issues which I think are worthy of thought and discussion.  I don’t have time to think through and write a proper post right now, so will just put some excerpts and links out here and see what develops–I’ll probably add some commentary later.

Claire Lehmann at X:

What if the motive is Incel-related and Trump wasn’t a target because of his politics, but because of his status and success with women

My immediate reaction was, well, aren’t personal issues and demons often a major factor in why someone gets involved with an ideology, especially an extremist ideology?  But OTOH, there’s a difference between someone who acts through an ideology on behalf of his demons and someone who doesn’t even bother with much of an ideological shield, or indeed any ideological shield.  We don’t know which type this character was, yet.

Also from Claire:

The irony is that in trying to assassinate Donald Trump, Crooks inadvertently provided Trump with an opportunity to display the very qualities that have already made him a cult icon. Trump’s immediate reaction—standing up and raising his fist to the crowd despite the clear and present danger—exemplified the kind of raw, physical courage that our evolutionary programming associates with effective leadership and high status.

She has followed up with a post at Quillette:  Courage and Cowardice in Pennsylvania…the post and discussion are worth reading.  I have posted some not-fully-baked thoughts in the comments.

Comes now Stepfanie Tyler at X:

graduated in 2012 w a degree in Women’s Studies
cried in 2016 when Trump got elected
lost touch w the dems somewhere around MeToo
discovered entrepreneurship
updated my voter registration in 2018 but didn’t tell anyone
told myself i was a ‘single-issue-voting Centrist’
the last 6-12 months i’ve believed i was going to abstain from voting in the upcoming election because the options are equally terrible
but watching Trump survive an assassination attempt and act like a total fucking savage just shifted me into some strange, patriotic gear that my fancy-feminism-white-men-bad infected brain never showed me
like, the dude took a bullet and stood up with blood dripping down his face, and rallied a fucking crowd while fist pumping, yelling “FIGHT!”
sorry, but i’m voting for that. and saying it out loud feels so freeing

And, finally, a response to Stepfanie from I/O:

“I experienced a sudden political transformation because I liked that after he got grazed by a bullet he stood up and pumped his fist” is just another way of saying “I prefer to base my politics on primal animal instinct,” which I’m pretty sure is a non-ideal way to do politics.

Your thoughts?

“A Disease of the Public Mind”

by

 

That is the title of a book about the first US Civil War that resulted in the assassination of President Lincoln. The soldiers in the South hated those in the North and vice versa. Northern soldiers have since been credited with undeserved virtue while Southern rebels were labeled racist enemies of the state, a moniker that still survives in the present day. But neither side was fighting over the abolition of slavery.

 

Trump’s opponents claim he will re-institute Jim Crow oppression, put black people back in chains, end democracy and put people in Hitler’s concentration camps. The continuous character assassinations, legal persecutions, numerous impeachments, unfounded accusations and insinuation caused what has been called Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), a disease of the public mind resulting in a recent assassination attempt.

 

Follow the Money
The Constitution the North and South agreed upon in 1788 enshrined the economic principles of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, fostering equality under the law, individual sovereignty and limited government. Slavery was still too contentious an issue to settle. Starting in the next century the British led a moral crusade to eliminate slavery globally. While politically virtuous, Britain could afford to pay off slave owners and generally didn’t face the the vexing question for US plantation owners of whether freed slaves could support themselves and, if not, whether this would lead to murderous riots as had happened elsewhere. Abolition was a contentious issue everywhere slavery was practiced, typically with long drawn out steps to complete. But the long simmering political dispute that came to a head in 1860 wasn’t about abolition, but money. The federal government relied almost exclusively on tariffs raised in Southern ports – most of which went to northern states – on imports financed with the fruits of slavery, cotton exports.

 

Since the Civil War, limited government has given way to big government. The Democratic Party has created many dependent constituencies whose continued prosperity depends upon continuing Democratic power and largess: the bureaucracy, the government at all levels, teachers, labor leaders, academic educators and administrators, trial lawyers, government contractors, social security recipients and what are still euphemistically called journalists, among many others. The current Civil War is also about money. Trump has been in both political parties, fits in neither. But ”you are fired” represents an existential threat to Party members.

 

For contemporary Democratic politicians, almost all trained as lawyers, money beyond what is available by taxing the rich exists in banks, especially the Federal Reserve Banks, to be distributed according to the spoils system. For Republican politicians (but not RINOs), mostly former businessmen, prosperity comes from productive work and from savings productively invested. For those businesses and workers who are not on the receiving end of the spoils system, whose taxes pay for political largess, limited government is the only solution. There is very little middle ground.

Read more

Betrayal

by

Recent events make it quite clear, if it wasn’t already, that a high percentage of American media people–print, television, and Internet–have been involved in a multilevel betrayal:

–They have betrayed their supposed professional responsibilities to the truth, which they frequently assert to claim credibility and moral superiority.

–They have betrayed the American people through their frequently misleading and often outright false reporting. They saw Biden’s mental state on a regular basis, and either convinced themselves that they weren’t seeing what they were actually seeing, or flat-out lied.

–Given the importance of the United States in world affairs, they have betrayed not just Americans, but the people of the world. Issues of war and peace, prosperity or want, well-being or starvation for billions of people are affected by US policies and leadership.  The US possess the world’s most powerful military and its most devastating nuclear arsenal.  Thanks in large part to media irresponsibility, this is now under the control of a man who is in severe cognitive decline.  There are probably times in the typical Biden week when he could be convinced that the nuclear Gold Codes are things that he needs to provide to get a special discount deal on his favorite ice cream.

–This point is of lesser importance than the others, but given the most of these media people work for publicly-traded corporations, they have betrayed the shareholders who own the enterprises which employ them. These traditional media have not been doing exactly brilliantly in readership/viewership and financial terms. It seems likely that with a little more balance and a little less ideology, they could be doing significantly better. But the journalists chose to put their personal political beliefs ahead of this responsibility as well as their other responsibilities.

I have previously quoted something said to me once by a wise executive:

When you’re running a large organization, you aren’t seeing reality.  It’s like you’re watching a movie where you get to see maybe one out of a thousand frames, and from that you have to figure out what is going on.

If this is true about running large organizations–and it largely is–it is even more true for the citizen and voter in a large and complex country.  The individual can directly observe only a small amount of the relevant information, for the rest–from the events on the border to international and military affairs–he is generally dependent on others.  And that gives those others–those who choose the frames and the sequence in which they are presented in the movie analogy–a tremendous amount of power.

The rise of the Internet has provided an alternative to the information dominance of the traditional media, but social media has tended to reestablish centralized control points.  It is extremely fortunate–may indeed be lifesaving–that Elon Musk acquired Twitter (now X) and has established a relatively uncensored policy on that platform. Substack, too, appears so far to be a truly open platform.  AM/FM broadcast radio has also played a relatively independent role, but this appears to be under threat by acquisition of large numbers of stations by Soros interests…and, potentially, given that radio has long been government-regulated, by legislation and FCC regulation under any free-speech-unfriendly administration and Congress.

A big part of the problem is the ‘professionalization’ of media. Journalists once tended to be blue-collar people making their way up in the world; now, they tend more toward being Ivy League graduates, fully inculcated into all the correct ‘progressive’ attitudes.  And, ever since Watergate, people entering the media field tend to see themselves not so much as observers and analysts, but as participants in government–even as kingmakers.

The 1954 novel Year of Consent, which I reviewed here, posits a future United States which–while still nominally a democracy–is really controlled by those who control the communications and specialize in influence of public attitudes. It seems disturbingly prescient.