Higher Education? Higher than What?

                    Higher Education? Higher than What?

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 7/29/18

            The American university is beset with problems.  You wouldn’t know it by looking at its resplendent buildings, lawns, labs, and endowment. Sadly ironic, it isn’t the university that suffers from the problems; it’s the public that funds it.

            Before highlighting some of higher education’s shortcomings, let’s be fair.  Centuries hence, it will be said of Americans, “They tried to educate everybody.  They advanced literacy and became a world power in less than two centuries of existence.  Instead of letting poverty slide, they attacked it governmentally and privately.”

            Americans are still performing these tasks, and higher education has played an important role in them.  However, we have elevated the university to a status it doesn’t deserve.  In doing so we have forgotten that much of America’s greatness was brought about by private, non-degreed individuals who took advantage of our free enterprise system and either started a business, invented something, floated an idea, or built a non-profit organization that alleviated  suffering.  For every college graduate, there are thousands of non-college graduates who pursued a dream and positively affected other people’s lives.

            What are some problems the university has heaped on us?  One is the big lie that one’s success or failure depends on whether or not we avail ourselves of the university’s offerings.  The university holds over the public an aura of self-importance.  “You need me but you must pay the price,” it chortles.  “I am the standard bearer of all things intellectual,” it beams.

            Hogwash!  Let’s take these last two claims one at a time.  Standard bearer of all things intellectual?  Then how do we explain Eric Hoffer, the “uneducated” San Francisco longshoreman who wrote books such as “The Ordeal of Change” in which he illustrated that knowledge can be had and communicated without a university education?  Hoffer was no outlier.  Like many others, he educated both his head and hands, though not with a university degree.

            Suffice it to say it’s time to rethink higher education.  Time to break loose from its grip and acknowledge that the university is adrift.  It is adrift practically and ideologically.

            Practically, the college degree has run into the law of diminishing returns.  The Center for College Affordability and Productivity reports that the earning differential between high school and college graduates fell from $32,900 in 2000 to $29,867 in 2015.  Those who are going to college for money, instead of for expanding their general knowledge, might be better off avoiding college.

            As for ideological drift, Penn State law professor Amy Wax made the mistake of authoring an article in which she called for the re-instatement of the “cultural script” that prevailed in the 1950s.  In Wax’s words, the “cultural script” or norm for the 50s was “Marry before you have children, strive to stay married, get enough schooling to get employment, work hard, and avoid drugs and crime.”

            Professor Wax’s department colleagues and the law school dean hit the ceiling.  Said Dean Ted Ruger, “As an educator I reject emphatically that any single cultural tradition is better than all others.”

             What?  Constitutionalism – the bedrock of our political tradition – isn’t any better than dictatorships?  Religious freedom is no better than a church state as in Iran where religion and state are inexorably linked?  A unified nuclear family is not preferable over a single-parent culture?

            Let’s give the Dean this: he accurately represented the mindset of the university, particularly its passion for cultural equivalency, inclusivity, and total tolerance of all cultures.  Should someone seek out his opinion of cannibalism and female genital mutilation?

            The university bids us to keep an open mind about all things.  But writer Ravi Zacharias says, “An open mind is like an open mouth.  Sooner or later it must close on something, else it will accept everything, reject nothing, and become an open sewer.”

            Today’s reigning ideology is that of the university, certainly not that of hearth and home.  Today we are to believe that any style of family will do, which is actually a stupid notion since everybody knows that everybody has a mother and a father.  “Higher” typically means better, but is it better to neglect or demean manual skills and point all youths to the university?

            Today the 1950s norms are precisely what America needs.  No, no, not racial segregation, but marrying before having children, staying married, working hard, and avoiding wrong and unwise behavior.  The fact that a law professor was ostracized for saying so is absolutely depressing and scary.

Roger Hines

7/25/18      

The Big Turn: Hysteria in the Time of Trump

                The Big Turn: Hysteria in the Time of Trump

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 7/22/18

            The Big Turn begs for comment.  It occurred only recently, not because of any change of heart, but solely because of animosity for one individual, our current president.

            This dramatic turn was taken by the nation’s political Left.  For decades the Left, meaning Democrats, socialists, and the mainstream media, played footsie with the Soviet Union.  In fact, from its origin in 1917 to its demise in 1991 and beyond, the Soviet Union (now Russia) has enjoyed the affection of the American Left.

            There is something about socialism/communism/collectivism that woos those who are left of center.  Leftists simply believe in governmental activism and power.  Government is their chief tool for achieving social/political goals, not persuasion or even community action.  Believing that we all should like big government, they have no qualms about forcing others to accept their views.  Leftists just don’t trust the individual.  They yearn for Old Europe statism.

            Rightists are the opposite.  Like America’s intrepid forebears who conquered woods and terrain, they are deeply devoted to individualism.  Just grant me freedom, thank you, and I’ll take care of myself, they argue.  But no, you need the village and you must accept and live by what the village wants, argues the leftist.  Of course the village likes to tax and spend, limit individualism, and rush to the courts and the streets when things don’t go its way.

            No wonder that during the Cold War, Democrats were accused of being “soft on communism.”  The lingo of the Cold War years was “hawks” and “doves.”  Hawks favored a strong stance against the Soviets.  Doves were Soviet sympathizers.  Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington State was one of the few Democrats who argued for standing up to the ever-expanding Soviets.  Not so most leftists, however.

            When the Soviet Union began to crumble from its own weight, three world leaders saw an opportunity to hasten its fall in hopes that the Soviet people might finally see freedom’s light.  All three of these leaders – Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul, and Ronald Reagan – were opposed by the Left.  Thatcher despised socialism.  Pope John Paul, being Polish, knew firsthand about the long arm of the socialist Soviets.  And Ronald Reagan, that cowboy from out west who the Left claimed would get us all blown up, not only ended, but won the Cold War.

            Even though the words, “Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall,” were in Reagan’s speech to be delivered at the Berlin Wall, his advisors urged him not to say them.  In Truman-esque and Trumpian style, however, Reagan followed his own gut and the Left cringed.  They also cringed when he called the Soviet Union “the Evil Empire.”

            Today, the Left’s Big Turn is complete.  Today it’s OK to call Russia and Mr. Putin evil, and a citizen or president who doesn’t is “uninformed” and “senseless.”  But what caused the turn?  Is Putin worse than Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, or the Soviet satellite puppets like Castro?  Why was the Left so enamored with their philosophical cousins for 7 decades, only to turn on their present collectivist cousin Putin and call him an enemy?

            If they were consistent, the Left would be praising Putin as they did his socialist, murderous predecessors.  A Russian communist tyrant is a Russian communist tyrant. 

            The cause of the Big Turn is hatred of Donald Trump.  If Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, or John Kasich had been elected president and were sitting with Putin this past week at Helsinki,  taking the same position President Trump took, the Left and its Republican hangers-on would have been praising them for their moderation.

            Absent of Trump, the following words would be the Left’s line: “The U.S. and Russia own the vast majority of the world’s nukes.  An American president must therefore play nice with the Russian leader and always be in dialogue with him.  Failure to engage in détente will move us closer to Cold War II.  It would be foolish not to be friends with Mr. Putin.”

            The Left still won’t acknowledge that in 2016 at least half of the country wanted a new sheriff, even if the new sheriff had a foul mouth.  Strong man politics, not Republican niceness, was what the deplorables had in mind.

            The Left, who formerly never saw a socialist they couldn’t love, is using Putin. Having hypocritically turned from their love of Russian socialism, they disdain Putin merely because he dialogues with a president whom they equally disdain.

            Hysteria reigns in the Leftist camp. By 2020 it will have choked them.

Roger Hines

7/18/18

           

             

America the Beautiful

                               America the Beautiful

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 7/15/18

            When America was discovered with forests so replete, old William Bradford and others with the Indians did meet.  Of course they weren’t really Indians, we later on did learn.  We called them that because Columbus’ ship had made an erroneous turn.

            It was Christopher C. who started it all in 1492, but a hundred and fifteen years would pass before the first colony grew. But anyhow when Pilgrims came, departing their native land, awaiting them were snakes and bears and the elements on every hand.  Conditions grave deterred them not, though disease and death did reign.  To achieve their goal of freedom, they gladly endured the pain.  Thousands more from the Old World came to escape a duke or a king, and the price they paid could not compare to the sound of freedom’s ring.   

            Dismiss if you must the hand of God in preparing a place for the free, but Washington, Adams, and Madison, too, would strongly disagree.  “Man was not made for chains,” they said, as they mapped out a new way of life, and their document done, they sang in the sun that freedom would now be rife.

            Inconsistent were they and evil too, to place black men in chains, but who but those who dwell in the past would say that slavery still reigns?  Good will? I see it daily twixt Americans of every bent.  Let’s all remember we twice elected a young, black president.

            Our family feud was sorrowful, where brother against brother did fight.  The thousands slain, the enmity that reigned created a four-year night.  But Mr. Lincoln’s steadfast honor was clear for all to see, and it was matched, as we all know, by the character of Robert E. Lee.  So tear Lee down, and Stone Mountain, too, you cultural cleansers all, but when you do, the healing we need, your actions will forestall.

            There was little talk of healing during WW I and II.  Our minds were on the Kaisers and Hitler, and the Japanese emperor too.  But both wars led America to the heights of influence and power.  America’s doughboys and Churchill were the heroes of the hour.  Two of my older brothers dear fought in Belgium’s theater.  They both came home to tell us God was everybody’s Creator.  For late in the War in’45 even before troops were mixed, at Ludendorff Bridge whites fought with blacks as racial bigotry was nixed.  When you fight beside a new black friend and see Death shroud his face, you realize that you were taught wrong things back home about race.

            My father was our textbook for the Depression years, I swear.  Tidbits of info on it at every meal he’d share.  Now a sack of flour cost thus and such and things were scarce, he said, but after a while the struggles of life are not a thing to dread.  They shore us up; they teach us well to smile through times of need.  If only what my father said more Americans today would heed.

            In Vietnam we lost our way for victory was not our goal.  Our sons and daughters all came home, as murderers, or so they were told.  On college campuses throughout the land, effete collegians sang.  At Woodstock, Boston, and L.A., their treasonous protests rang.  With Peter, Paul, and Mary’s ballads that made the students cry, the goodness of America they all began to deny.  Since of a winning spirit our leaders were bereft, we simply laid our weapons down and ceremoniously left.  Lost blood, lost years, lost soldiers not a few, we may have learned a lesson, but I doubt it; moreover, what with Afghanistan and other lands, is our nation building really over?

            Today our nation still stands strong, but there is much division.  And lest our snarling create more, we best make certain decisions.  Shall we continue on to treat our spending like a pet, thinking a nation can exist forever with permanent national debt?  Do moral issues matter?  Is our highest value our fun?  Would pro-abort folks pause if, for abortions, we used a gun?

            We have no solid guarantee our American experiment will last.  229 years of life is a very, very short past.  We best realize that spirit is what’s missing, you see, and that loving all our neighbors leads to true community.

            So hail to our America and to noble Francis Scott Key.  It was he who heralded our flag that night that led to our liberty.

Roger Hines

7/11/18

           

Whither America? The Moment is at Hand

                 Whither America?  The Moment is at Hand

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 7/8/18

It was bound to happen, the topsy-turvy state of American politics, that is.  Things change.  Flux is one of life’s absolute certainties.

Liberals typically celebrate this certainty.  Believing in the perfectibility of man, they favor and employ disruption to achieve it.  For most liberals, change is their modus operandi, not legitimate change through the legislative process, but change via the courts and the streets.

Conservatives observe change and are prone to yell, “Stop!” or at least “Hold on.”  They are perhaps the better students of history.  They question whether or not the Godless communists were any better than the 300-year reign of the church-going, peasant-holding Romanovs.  (The communists weren’t better. They were far, far worse.)  Conservatives rightly wonder why liberals used to love everything Russian and were so soft on communism, but now consider Russia a mortal enemy who colludes with Republicans.  Hhmmm.

Castro was just as evil as the deposed Batista.  One might ask if Mao’s “People’s Revolution” brought more freedom to the people.  It certainly did not.  So change is not always good.

Even so, change is happening fast in American politics.  The terms Democrat and Republican are becoming muddled.  We thought Donald Trump had muddled the words Republican and conservative, and that Democrats would profit from it.   But then Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren became the face and voice of the Democrats, stirring the Democratic pot just as deeply.  Columnist George Will might want to reconsider his decision to leave the Republican Party if his intent was to go Democratic.

Donald Trump’s successful incursion into politics has delighted many Republicans and mortified others.  Trump has drawn to himself many Democrats and has driven other Democrats to unmask themselves, thus revealing their true socialist core.  Party distinctions and loyalties are no longer the beachhead for our political involvement.  Voters have begun to seek a singular voice, a disturber.  If that voice is imperfect, how perfect, how corruption-free are the parties?

Few if any media commentators have truly delved into why an unconventional Republican candidate became the Republican Party’s nominee and the nation’s President, or how a billionaire could so adeptly arouse the so-called working class.  Yet, this President with no political experience is getting at least a B+/A- for advancing his agenda.

Commentators and reporters study the news and produce their articles, but they obviously don’t study the electorate.  A reporter’s one-night stay in a remote town motel and a 30-minute session with the locals over breakfast, 30 seconds of which will be aired on television, doesn’t show who and what ordinary Americans are.  No breaking bread in a home, no driving and stopping through tired neighborhoods plus no riding down country roads equals fake information about ordinary Americans.

The folks about whom the media stars know little or nothing are the ones who are finding hope – even solace and camaraderie – in an upstart New Yorker.  And though the New Yorker probably didn’t hit any back roads either, he obviously touted positions and spoke words that the supposedly “uneducated, uninformed, cultist-inclined” Americans were waiting to hear.  Words like “more jobs,” “build the wall,” and “lower taxes.”  Trump lovers have never flocked to the courts or taken to the streets.  They’ve been at work.  Their saner tactic has been to keep waiting for the light and flocking to the voting booth.

The craziness of Maxine Waters and company, whom Democratic Party leaders have not disavowed, daily strengthens the New Yorker’s cause and broadens his base.  May her craziness increase! 

The moment is at hand.  Doubtless, our politics is moving away from parties and toward the individual who can best size up and stir up the most hearts and minds.  If we must blame someone, blame our two major parties.  It is they who have slow-walked on reducing spending, looked the other way when our southern border was being invaded, and allowed government to grow time and time again.  As a result, both parties are responsible for Donald Trump and his glorious deplorables.

As a rule, American voters turn rightward for solutions.  Think Nixon and “law and order,” Reagan and “the evil empire,” or Trump and “America First.”  Parties would best remember this. 

How many Republicans, not just President Obama, have been heard to say, “Those jobs are not coming back”?  But they are, and all because of a man, not a party.

Whither America will be answered partially in November of this year, and more fully in November of 2020.  For now, polls show that the people are feeling rather satisfied.

Roger Hines

7/4/18

     

Somebody Spank Those Young’uns

                         Somebody Spank Those Young’uns

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal,7/1/18

            Would anybody care to join me in my efforts to restore the abandoned practice of spanking?  Not hitting or striking. Spanking.

            We all know what spanking is and isn’t.  But oh, the horror stirring in the minds of readers whose minds are stuck on the words “hitting” and “striking,” even though I placed the word “not” in front of them.  Yes, modern psychology and parenting magazines have convinced most parents that they can reason with a child.  With some children you can, but I wouldn’t dote on it being a high percentage of today’s children.

            Our land, birthed in ruggedness and confidence and raised to great heights through ruggedness and confidence, has experienced an almost total loss of ruggedness and confidence when it comes to parenting.  We used to spank, but we’ve been shamed into inaction by “smart” people who write books and articles opposing it.  We’ve let them make us think we’re not as smart as they are.  I’ve read more articles on parenting than I can count, and I’ll put the wisdom and common sense of my 7^th grade educated mother and my 11^th grade educated, tenant farmer father up against any parenting expert.  My spanking parents weren’t mean.  They were wise.

            If I see one more 6-foot dad in a grocery store trying to negotiate with his 5-year-old kid, I’m going to scream.  I need the release.  Even the 6-foot, confidence-challenged dads have been seduced by the books and magazines.  Moms and dads both are constantly seeking permission from their little ones, usually with the question, “Okay?”  Make that “Okaaaay?”  String it out and maybe the child’s reasoning powers will miraculously emerge and prevail while you’re still asking for permission.

            When we see adults acting up in public (gathering and verbally attacking someone they disagree with) we can bet our last dime their parents said “Okaaaay” to them when they were children.  I mean, this situation didn’t start yesterday.  Ruggedness and confidence began to erode in the sixties.

            Many good things are happening in our country.  The economy is good; race relations are good (television news or commentary is not the measure here; your neighborhood, church, grocery store, and work place are the measure); the Nevada legislature is considering making brothels illegal, and charitable giving is still very strong, with Americans having given $373 billion in 2016.

            These facts are encouraging, but defiant, spoiled children (well, their parents) pose a present and future problem.  Children are in need of some parental shock and awe.  If parents can successfully deliver this commodity verbally, well and good.  If not, it’s time to use the belt again.  The tender approach has produced its visible fruit.  Belts, paddles, and switches on the well-padded gluteous-maximus never harmed anybody.

            The parenting books argue that “Because I said so” is a woeful response for a child who asks “Why?”  I can think of no better response.  Because Mom or Dad said so is the precise, the most supreme reason why a child should or should not do something.  If there is no ultimate authority for a child in the home, he or she is far more likely to face it before a judge or a jury.

            In his best-selling book, “12 Rules for Life,” Jordan Peterson asserts that when a father disciplines his son, he disturbs his son’s freedom, forcing him into acceptable behavior.  “But if the father doesn’t take such action,” Peterson writes, “he merely lets his son remain Peter Pan, the eternal Boy, King of the Lost Boys, Ruler of the non-existent Neverland.”  As one might guess, psychologist Peterson is breaking with his professional colleagues on this matter.

            Here is what the eternal boy (and girl) are doing that would have been embarrassing a few decades ago.  They are having their parents call up their college professors to complain about a grade.  Worse still, parents often show up on campus to discuss the perceived injustice. Good news: most professors refuse to talk to parents.  This situation should not be surprising.  Its culmination came when Obamacare allowed “children” up to age 26 to be carried on their parents’ insurance.

            If parents don’t start accepting the fact that maturity and individuality often must come through painful discipline, their children, according to Peterson, will “go to pieces in the face of adversity.”  We’re already seeing this.

            It’s time to reject philosophies and practices that produce bad results.  Time to spank again.  And please, let’s reinstate the military draft and let Uncle Sam do what Mom and Dad failed to do.

Roger Hines

6/27/18