Self esteem, teachers, and virtue

People who overvalue themselves are generally not the people we want in leadership positions. Those who are meek about what they do may be our best citizens.

We have written before about the hazards of thinking too much about ourselves and our work. We have found and offer to you an excerpt from a neat little article penned by Richard Mitchell, who wrote under the moniker of The Underground Grammarian. The passage itself may be vaguely dated, having been published in 1983, but the point is universal. You may read the entire piece here: http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/

We encourage you to read more of Mitchell's stuff. It's pretty good on the whole. But for now, read this and let it sink in.

ONE of the most delicious ironies of our ironical time is the fact that schoolteachers often make less money than garbagemen. Although garbagemen seem to have reconciled themselves to this curious inequity perhaps out of a phlegmatic realism inevitably induced by their labors, schoolteachers have not.

How can it be, schoolteachers ask in letters to editors all over the land, that "society" holds them so cheap? Have they not labored mightily to make society exactly what it is today, clarifying values, facilitating appreciations, and teaching everyone how to relate? Have they not been the principal providers of universal public self-esteem, creativity, and social awareness? So how come they don't get no respect? What kind of society can it be that better rewards those who haul away garbage than those who produce it?

Such complaints seem, at first, indubitably justifiable. At least, they require of any thoughtful citizen a scrutiny of whatever differences can be discovered between garbagemen and schoolteachers:

While the work of garbagemen is of unquestionable social value, they never hire public relations experts to nag us about their selfless devotion to the common good. They don't even have a bumper sticker. That ought to he worth a few bucks.

When garbagemen ask for more money, they gladly admit that what they really want is the money. As to recompense for the self-sacrifice out of which they consented to become garbagemen rather than executives of multi-national corporations, they say nothing. Such reticence is surely worth a little more money.

Although they shouldn't be, garbagemen are just a little bit ashamed of what they do, and thus deficient in self-esteem. Schoolteachers are not the least bit ashamed of anything that they do. They have great big oodles of self-esteem. Would it not be an appropriately democratic redistribution of wealth to take some money, since they'll never part with that self-esteem, away from the privileged schoolteachers and give it to those emotionally deprived garbagemen?

The shame that arises from believing what the world tells us to believe is a form of slavery, but when shame arises from self-knowledge informed by a principled consideration of what is estimable and what is not, it is virtue.

Politics cause division; really?

We read with interest a recent article which laments the effect of political parties on classes of people. Basically, it concluded that more people vilify the opposition party (and it doesn't matter which party is the opposition) by larger numbers than in about 1960. You can read the details here: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-22/partyism-now-trumps-racism?utm_content=buffer16c12&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer if you like.

Have you read them yet? It's fine if you have, and fine if you have not, because we're not sure that the findings are all that important, unusual, or unexpected. Political feelings like many other feelings will ebb and flow over time, so it should not be a surprise that the depths of emotion for political parties would vary over generations as well. Neither ought we be surprised that feelings run deep when significant changes have affected the culture. Abortion for example was not an issue in 1960 because both major American parties, the Democrats and the GOP, accepted it as wrong and as such were not attempting to expand nor contract the availability of it. Now it is an option, and it may be the one great issue upon comprise simply is impossible. Stripped of the supposed nuances, you're either for it or against it. Period. This means that you're either a Republican or a Democrat on the question and that you will see the opposition as completely and obviously wrongheaded. Such a wedge must only make politics more divisive, even under a veil of general cooperation as a nation.

But we've almost always had such wedges, haven't we? In the United States, there were the loyalists and rebels during the revolution, the Federalists and the Anti-federalists (quickly becoming Jefferson's Democratic Republicans) during the first few decades of our Republic, then the Republicans and the Democrats before, during, and after the Civil War. Even during the Great Depression and into the 1960s, the stigma of being Republican was great. We suspect that similar attitudes can be found throughout the histories of other essentially democratic nations as well. In short, the idea that there may be deep fissures between major political and social groups today in America can't be terribly significant news.

Add to that one of the basic premises of democracy, namely, that it forces compromise, and we ought to expect a divided electorate. No one ever gets everything they want through compromise, and often it only leaves everyone unsatisfied. Compromise may be a bit of a devil in that sense; it makes better people concede things to lesser folks merely for the sake of moving on (not necessarily forward). We simply ought not be shocked with the results of such a system. It's almost bound to leave everyone with a bad taste in their mouths, a taste they try to rid themselves of through the mask of politics and elections.

This isn't to justify any blanket condemnation of whomever the political opponent may be. We just find ourselves after reading such studies scratching our heads and asking plainly, "What did you expect?"

Tulloch got what he deserved

Stephen Tulloch, a line backer on the Detroit Lions, has torn his ACL, the anterior cruciate ligament, an injury which will cost him the entire 2014 National Football league season. He hurt himself after a sack of Green Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers when he tried to mock the downed Packer with a mimic of the 'discount double check' catchphrase from Rodgers' State Farm Insurance ads, itself a mimic of Rodgers own 'championship belt celebration'. But hey, Tulloch was just celebrating. He isn't embarrassed by how he injured himself.

Well, he should be. He just cost himself a season and the Lions a pile of cash for which they will not be properly compensated. He may also cost the Lions a playoff spot. And he also cost the fans, who effectively pay his salary, from having the best possible Lions defense on the field.

But he's not embarrassed. Everyone celebrates a good play, and that's all he was doing.

Well, no, that's not all he was doing. A celebration is a yell, a high five, a pat on the helmet from another player. A real celebration usually comes when a game is over and done and not while it is still undetermined. Tulloch was grandstanding. He was mocking another player rather than letting his tackle speak for itself. What he did was unsportsmanlike and not mere celebration. Short of the injury, he ought to have been, as every instance of mockery or the disrespect of an opponent ought to be, flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct.

But he's not embarrassed. That attitude above all indicates that maybe he deserves what he got. We're wont to believe it.

Catholics and the American Media

When the media in the US speak of Catholicism and Catholic issues, they seem very often to hold sympathy with the Catholic left. This isn't surprising, seeing as they agree politically with them. But is their a true reflection of American Catholicism?

Conservative American Catholics have long been at odds with groups such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. They are not on the bus with the nuns. Quite frankly, the Vatican often questions these groups' devotion to Church doctrine. Conservative American Catholics do as well. Their use of the poor to support liberal ideals reeks of no less than political gamesmanship: if you don't support massive government programs alleged to aid the poor, you are not Catholic.

Bosh. An unstable economy cannot help the poor. A government which falls under the crushing weight of bureaucracy cannot help the poor. Any policy which allows groups of people to live without attempting to improve their lot cannot help the poor. Yet they can make the poor arrogant. This is witnessed by the attitude that society must help them beyond any other considerations, such as things of their own doing. Not all the poor are poor by circumstance.

When American bishops and nuns attempt to make American public policy a matter of faith they err considerably. Public policy after all is nothing more than how a nation spends its money. Isn't religion concerned with objects greater than that? What profit a man to gain the world and lose his his soul? Can this not apply to the poor who have come to rely on government largesse rather than themselves?

There is an arrogance at work here, yet it is not the arrogance of the wealthy. It is the arrogance of entitlement. It is the arrogance which asserts that certain folks cannot help themselves. It is the arrogance of groups such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious who, rather than do the work of the Lord themselves, insist someone else must do it: namely, the government. They ask this without concern of the true mission of government, which is little more than to ensure that the Catholic Church and all other charitable groups are free to do their mission, the great part of which is to help the poor and downtrodden.

If you can only do your work with government aid, how much then are you relying on Providence and the Grace of God? Not nearly enough as to display any real devotion to Faith.

Ch Ch Changes

Embracing change is easy. Embracing Orthodoxy is the real challenge.

-a paraphrase of Mr. G. K. Chesterton

We hear it all the time, don't we, fellow conservatives? We hear the importance of embracing change, of being willing to change, of the need to alter our beliefs and desires to the will and whim of the current society. That's all we need to do is embrace the change which the modern society wishes us to do.

If they meant for us to change in the sense of becoming truly better persons, of changing from bad habit to good, of learning to like what we ought and dislike what we ought as well, of becoming more truly and usefully charitable and kind, there would be no problem. But they don't mean that. They mean, 'accept our ways of thinking and acting'. Or, more precisely, accept the change we want imposed on you.

But the trouble with accepting change as change is that's all that it is: doing something differently or something else entirely in the next moment from this one. But what it more generally means these days is to acceot what modern society may want rather than what may really help both the individual and the world at large. All that will do is lead us we know not where. And anyway, accepting change just to change is simple and, really, stupid as a guiding principle. Do nothing, reflect on nothing, question nothing, and change will occur. There's no effort involved.

Yet embracing Orthodoxy, and we capitalize it on purpose, accepting and living by reasonable guidelines and proper traditions, now that's the challenge. That's where we grow and nurture our selves and our souls. That's how we create better people and a better world. By living right according to the just precepts which have been with us since the dawn of time. Change is all right, yes, if done to that purpose.

Otherwise, it will happen anyway. But would you rather do what you can to control change, or merely be stuck in its tight and unwieldy (and worldly) groove, as Mr. Chesterton also suggests? For you will lose control of yourself by merely agreeing to eternally change. Yet tradition works. That's how it became traditional in the first place.

Reggie Bush and disciplining a child

Bush, 29, is in his second year with the Lions. He has just 96 combined rushing and receiving yards through two games this season.

This quote was taken from this morning's Detroit Free Press online, at www.freep.com. You may read the whole thing here: http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2014/09/16/detroit-lions-reggie-bush-adrian-peterson/15720293/ Anyway, the seemingly editorial remark appeared at the conclusion of an article where Detroit Lions running back Reggie Bush was supposedly defending Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson for having disciplined his 4 year old son with a switch, a twig from a tree. Peterson is facing charges of child abuse due to the incident. Bush was defending spanking while saying he was not in favor of beating a child. But then, what reasonable mind favors beatings of any sort?

Yet this isn't to defend anything which Peterson or Bush has said. We are okay with spanking and against beatings ourselves. But we wonder, what might be the meaning of adding such a commentary to an article which was decidedly unrelated to American football except in a vague, tangental sense?

It strikes us as a suggestion, however subtle, that Mr. Bush's lack of stellar performance on the gridiron thus far this season somehow reflects poorly on his abilities as a father. Or are we reading too much into it?

We're just asking a question. But it certainly sounds to us as though the writer is attempting to denigrate Bush's opinion in a red herring sort of way. What thinkest thou?

Animal rights in China; Abortion in America

A city in China has killed nearly 5,000 dogs in an attempt to stunt the spread of rabies. Baoshan, in southwestern Yunnan province, did so after saying that there were five human deaths because of the disease. This follows closely with an incident in the city of Hanzhong, which reportedly killed about 37,000 dogs after an out break of rabies there in 2009. Dog lovers and animal rights activists are outraged.

We understand why they're so upset. The killing of dogs is far more of an concern than than the killing of human beings in China via abortion. Animals have rights which babies do not, and the animal rights enthusiasts, speaking for the animals, of course, want to make sure the animals are heard. It's too bad there is no Lorax speaking for aborted babies, or maybe the issue would get the attention it merits.

Anyway, we do understand why they are incensed. Some of the dogs were reportedly clubbed to death, an action which we cannot supported because it's inhumane, and the activists argue that vaccination would do the trick rather than exterminating the animals. The arguments do, on the surface, make sense. But do they actually believe that they will make sense to the Chinese authorities? These are people who ran tanks over their own citizens rather than tolerate protests and moved entire cities in order to flood out areas for the production of electricity. Why should think for a moment that a dog's life would matter to them?

We can't help but wonder too if all those folks riled up over animal rights were any more riled up over conscious decisions to flood out ages old towns, or more upset at the horrors of Tiananmen Square? Indeed, are they for abortion while having the pretension to speak for Fido? Because if they aren't upset at the human cost of Chinese authority, and we suspect that many were indeed not, and if favor abortion, which we suspect many do, then we find ourselves with little sympathy for their cause. Such folks are arguably mere hypocrites who we must urge to get their own houses in order before they concern themselves with Chinese animal control policy.

The NFL and domestic violence

Will Leitch, a senior writer for something called Sports on Earth among other things, has written in this past Sunday's edition of USA Weekend, that American football is wrong for attempting to tone down the actions of its players, especially the on field but also the off field antics. He apparently does not like the new rules against excessive celebration and dunking the ball over the goalpost after a touchdown, for example, lamenting that the NFL is denying players their personality, whatever that means.

Well, we'll tell you what that means: it means showboating or grandstanding, things themselves which were once thought unsportsmanlike. The NFL is quite right in trying to eliminate such aspects of the game.

They are sports, after all. Mere games which, for a long time anyway, we were encouraged to participate in for exercise as well as to learn how to be good sports. This surely means that you do not rub your opponents face into the ground when you're just beaten him for a score. Some high fives and a few a few pats on the helmet should be all the celebration you need, allowing for greater celebrations at more climatic moments to be fair.

Mr. Leitch claims that fans often want individual players to rise above the game. This is a good point, yet not for the reasons he seems to believe. He uses, wrongly, we're wont to think, Michael Jordan as an example of such rising. But did Mr. Jordan 'rise' by belittling his opponents, or by carousing all hours of the day and night? Not that we know. We believe that better exemplars of becoming more than the game come through respecting the game and its fans, transcending their sport to a level which takes the game upwards with them. In local lore this would be such folk heroes as Al Kaline and Alan Trammell, and more broadly the soon to be retired Derek Jeter, whose grace and class both on and off the field has made their sublime legacies better for all three as well as for baseball itself.

We cannot help but think that it is no coincidence that the arrogant, thug mentality which has permeated American football for so many years has made so many players less than stellar citizens. Hardly a day goes by without news of some new domestic violence issue, or gunshot at a nightclub involving an NFL player. The League is trying to address those questions too. As it should. But at the end of the day, sports should be sportsmanlike. That means essentially that you let your actions speak for you. If those actions are profound enough, the player will receive his due. If he must advertise for them, he likely doesn't merit the accolades anyway.

Labor Day 2014

Labor Day weekend is upon us, and that means many things to many people. Mostly, it seems, it is meant to be a relaxing time with family and friends. There's nothing with that, of course. But what is Labor Day really, and how does it relate to conservatism?

It is intended, most would say, as a celebration of the labor of the working men and women of our country. Fair enough; labor in all its forms is the backbone of our economy. Further, a fair days' work is something which ought to be prized and seen proudly. The contributions which we make to society when we engage in wholesome work should be satisfying to workers and the beneficiaries of work on about the same plane.

Yet the honor of Labor Day is felt with particular pride in and around Detroit and Wayne County, and why not? As the cradle of the automotive industry and the famed arsenal of democracy during World War II, among other contributions to Americana, we should feel good about our place in history. Then too, with our local economy being so hard hit by the recession, we may well feels the pangs of economic restriction more keenly than many other places in the country.

So where does this leave us with regard to the right wing? Simply that, seen in the, ahem, right light, conservatism is a great friend to the worker. Conservatism respects the rights of all, particularly, believe it or not, those most susceptible to economic strife. Conservatism recognizes the value of work and of the worker, and more, of the rights inherent in work. We respect the right of the individual to seek gainful employment in an open arena of job seekers and employers working freely and respectfully towards everyone's best interest. Conservatism, if allowed to become fully operational, would let the market works its wonders, and everyone would benefit, as they did in the Reagan years and also, truth be told, in the Clinton years under a Republican Congress which did more for the general welfare than our philanderous ex-President.

In short, conservatives are for labor. With the right amount of consideration in return, we could see this current mess ended quickly and spectacularly.