A Grain Of Salt – Part One: Respect

Guest essay by Caleb Shaw

One sign of healthy skepticism is that you take things with a grain of salt, but there is a problem inherent in having this attitude, namely “disrespect.” We are suppose to respect our elders and teachers, and I can’t say my skepticism has always led to such respect.

For example, as a teenager in the late 1960’s I embraced the Jack Weinberg quote, “Don’t trust anyone over thirty,” in a way that seriously thwarted learning from my elders. To be blunt, the reason I distrusted elders was because I wanted to break the law, and they’d put me in jail if they knew what I was up to. (I wish I could say I was breaking rules for some noble cause, such as pacifism, but that would be dishonest.)

Basically I wanted to do things elders would disapprove of, and didn’t want to hear elders rebuke me for doing things that they claimed were bad for me. Therefore, instead of learning from elders, I learned the hard way that many of the things they said were bad for me were, in fact, bad.

Apparently, if I was going to be skeptical, I should have been more skeptical of the statement, “Don’t trust anyone over thirty,” however it didn’t seem possible I’d ever be so old. That particular skepticism didn’t sink in until my thirtieth birthday approached, and I looked in the mirror and thought to myself, “Oh Lord, I’m about to be one of those people you can’t trust.”

Now that I’m over sixty I thoroughly approve of respecting elders. In fact I have revised the Weinberg quote, and it now goes, “Don’t trust anyone under sixty.” After a significant pause I add, “And I wouldn’t trust those over sixty either.” After a second significant pause I conclude, “For that matter, I wouldn’t trust myself.”

The simple fact of the matter is that humans aren’t perfect. (Some say there are such things as Perfect Masters, but I can’t claim I’ve ever met one on the street.) Sooner or later everyone I’ve met, including myself, makes a mistake, and, by making that mistake they, in some way, shape or form, break the trust. Even a minor mistake, such as being one minute late for an appointment, breaks the trust. Even if you have a thousand excuses, you failed to keep your word. Therefore it is quite true to state that no one can be trusted.

Life would be a complete drag if I took human imperfection to heart, and walked about scowling at everyone. Another attribute of humans is that, just as you can’t trust them to do right, you can’t trust them to do wrong, either. At times the most unlikely people pull off amazing deeds of kindness, strength and heroism. Humans are a lot like the weather in this respect: You can’t forecast them with 100% certainty.

Though you can’t trust humans to be perfect, you can develop a form of government that takes imperfection into account, and, through a system of checks and balances, makes it possible to make, recognize, recover-from and forgive mistakes. In like manner you can create scientific disciplines that allow one to make, recognize, recover-from and forgive mistakes. In fact all areas of life, right down to a game of darts, can be governed in a way that allows one to make, recognize, recover-from and forgive mistakes. All people need to do is accept a system of rules.

This was precisely what I refused to do, as an ignorant, young jerk. People much smarter than I had worked long and hard to create various systems that effectively deal with the fact humans are prone to making mistakes, but their systems involved rules, and I didn’t like rules. I would find a better way, an “alternative lifestyle.” Rules didn’t seem to be the same as freedom, and I wanted to be free, unaware (to a ridiculous degree) that one thing I’d never be free from was making mistakes. Then, when my mistakes became apparent, I, in the spirit of a true do-it-yourselfer, set out to reinvent the wheel. Because I was very lucky, my mistakes didn’t kill me, and I eventually arrived at a solution that looked very much like a wheel.

Now I sit back and wonder, “What in God’s name was I thinking?” I wasted decades reinventing a wheel that teachers were trying to give me for free. What made me such a stupid rebel? What a mistake!

I suppose I could play the blame-game, and say someone else made a mistake that led to mine. America is a nation founded upon rebellion, and Americans are such rebels that even the motto on their money states you can’t trust humans. It was therefore my homeland that put rebellion in my blood.

Or I could blame women, (especially schoolmarms), because it was only when women got the vote that drinking beer became unconstitutional. Prohibition didn’t merely engender a disrespect for the law, but even for the Constitution our forefathers died for, yet, as a young boy, I could hear old-timers laugh about how they brewed beer in the basement, blithely unaware they were encouraging disrespect for the Constitution.

Or they laughed about how they drove 1000 miles in ten hours, though the speed limit signs said sixty-five.

On the fourth of July everyone set off fireworks in my Massachusetts neighborhood, though fireworks were illegal. Does that not celebrate independence from the Law? Is it not in the very nature of Americans to disobey elders, whether they be King George or one’s schoolmarm? It isn’t my fault! I am not to blame for the fact I wasted decades reinventing the wheel!

The blame-game may be fun, but it cannot pull you out of quicksand. At some point it simply doesn’t matter how you wound up to your neck. Getting out of the mess becomes the focus. However, providing you survive, it is a healthy intellectual exercise to look back and ponder the mistakes that got you into quicksand. Even if it doesn’t get you out of the ooze, it might help you to avoid jumping back in. It is in this spirit that I would like to cause trouble, by pointing the blame-game finger at the schoolmarms.

I think I can say, with a high degree of probability, that it is a mistake for schoolmarms to put boys (such as I once was) in rows of desks, and expect the boys to sit still. Boys squirm. Boys kick. Boys dream out the window, dip pigtails in inkwells, shoot spitballs, and fail to memorize six words of Shakespeare even while writing twenty lines of rhyming doggerel mocking schoolmarms, (with hilarious cartoon illustrations.) You are just begging for disaster if you fail to recognize boys will be boys. You will turn a boy who might have been law-abiding into a law-breaker. Boys, by their very nature, need to run wild, and if you squelch this impulse you will have hell to pay.

(I’ve talked with schoolmarms who know this, for they have seen that boys sit most still and learn most right after recess, and right after summer vacation, and squirm worst and learn next to nothing just before recess, and when spring is in the air. However, being schoolmarms and not boys, they don’t even whimper when their government and/or teachers-union urge recesses and summer vacations be banned “so boys may learn more.”)

I actually think it isn’t a schoolmarm’s duty to discipline boys. That job is the father’s. If I wrote the laws, then, rather than a bad boy being expelled to the principle’s office, the boy would be sent by taxi to the father’s workplace. If the Dad was in jail, send the kid there. That would get men’s attention darn fast.

That never happened when I was little. I suppose I should point the blame-game finger at Dads, for when I was young they put widgets ahead of family, and ran away to the rush-hour each day-break, leaving their poor, defenseless sons in the quicksand of classrooms, and at the mercy of schoolmarms.

Due to a weird twist of fate, I grew up dead center in a wormhole in the space-time continuum, wherein I escaped the wrath of schoolmarms when it was expressed by caning, and escaped the wrath of schoolmarms as it is now expressed by drugging. When I made chaos out of their quiet classrooms, all I faced was the wrath of schoolmarms expressed by words.

Much of my skill with the use of the English language was absorbed from schoolmarm’s tongue-lashings. In order to keep order in classrooms of twenty to thirty Baby Boom rebels, they had to exploit adroit sarcasm and cynical sneering, and employ twists of dubious logic and clubbing condemnation. Their wit could be superb and set the entire class laughing, but when you are a little boy and the whole class is laughing at you, you do not think of witty rebuttals as much as you think of getting some sort of completely unholy and uncivilized revenge. An abscess of resentment brewed in me. Schoolmarms may have kept me quelled, when I was small and helpless, but when my hormones hit and I swiftly loomed taller than they, all my study of their use of English came back to haunt them.

They had created a monster. True, Frankenstein is not usually portrayed as jovial, nor as being able to out-argue the doctor who bolted in his brains, but reality is often even stranger than a monster movie. I became an outlaw, but one of the most harmless outlaws imaginable. Initially my sinister activities involved dreaming out windows, wandering into the classroom after the bell, or shrugging when asked where my homework was. It was when I stopped shrugging, and started answering the sarcastic questions, that I think I set some sort of modern record for the most after-school detentions ever received for being cheerful.

Detentions were a half-hour spent sitting in a classroom after school, and were a bad idea when boys are bursting with energy. I could only serve four detentions a day, because the last bus left at four-thirty, and for a time it looked like I might not graduate due to not-having-served the amazing numbers of detentions I was amassing. It was at this point an uneasy truce descended. Likely the teachers dreaded the prospect of another year with me, though perhaps the teachers were also embarrassed by the prospect of failing a student who was going to win the award for creative writing, and not failing him because of his grades, but rather because he cheerfully answered their sarcastic questions. In any case they stopped being sarcastic, which meant I had won.

It was at this point, at my moment of victory, that I fell flat on my face. The culprit was drugs, but I’ll talk of that later. For now I want to remain on the topic of respecting elders.

Schoolmarms did teach me a sort of respect for elders, but it was not the sort of respect that leads to one rushing to elders, desiring their attention like a rock-star’s fan desires the star’s autograph. Instead my primary goal in school became to avoid the attention of schoolmarms. They were the Gestapo, and I was the French Resistance. My respect was the sort of loathing respect one has for a bully. After the hormones hit and I won my victory I became like the Norwegian Resistance, and schoolmarms became like the trembling Quislings after the Gestapo had fled Norway.

Now I look back across a half century and wonder: What was it that made them the bad-guy Nazis, and me the good-guy? Why didn’t they seem like millionaires, loaded with knowledge, as I myself was a mere beggar, with the empty pockets of ignorance? Schoolmarms were offering me a free hand-out. What was I fleeing?

I think the answer lies in the single, dreaded word, “Drill.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
huxley
June 27, 2014 9:30 am

Matthew Benefiel @7:41 am: Thanks for the thought.
I don’t hold grudges against the adults from my past. When I revisit those situations, however, I don’t see how I could have done much better than I did. My personal rebellion against authority then still makes sense to me, just as my current rebellion against climate science authority does.
Pondering the larger sixties countercultural movement against authority, I can certainly see its errors and excesses with us today, but I’m not convinced it was all a mistake or easily avoided.
Caleb asks why didn’t his teachers “seem like millionaires, loaded with knowledge”? Maybe because they weren’t.
My teachers were mostly ordinary people who had gotten where they had by playing the game but didn’t seem to have any special wisdom beyond perseverance, and many of them seemed terribly flawed, confused, and unhappy. I have more appreciation for perseverance now but that alone doesn’t make the nut of a millionaire’s store of knowledge.
Caleb also seems to forget the considerable doubts adults then had about their collective wisdom. They had been through one world war, a terrible depression another world war, and were looking at the possibility of a total nuclear war.
Boomers didn’t invent the disenchantment with elder wisdom. That had been brewing at least since World War I.

June 27, 2014 9:41 am

Hoser says: “What made the Boomers so self-indulgent and whiny? What is the reason we need to dive into endless armchair self-psychoanalysis?”
They were the primary recipients of the age of Behavioral Conditioning which exalted “feelings” over rationality, spilling over into the schools. Meanwhile drugs like LSD were part of the mind-control experiments conducted by our shadow government. The population “boom” was also an issue in that Social Security and other entitlements surely couldn’t handle the strain especially with deficit government spending ensuring a requirement to borrow off the public trust.
“In my opinion, it’s a product of the Greatest Generation’s greatest mistake: Spoiling their children, because they had to do without during the Depression and WWII, and our economy improved in the 50s and early 60s.”
Apparently, the Greatest Generation also let “feelings” impact their mathematical abilities. At what point did prospective parents consider that there just might not be enough for everyone after all? It apparently extended all the way to the parents of the Baby Busters. Those children, born in 1960-62 routinely overfilled classrooms and largely came to comprise “The Sandwich generation” obliged to care for their math-deficient elder parents along with their unemployable adult children and perhaps even stark-future grandchildren. I’m one of those Baby Busters, but I know a little too much math to submit to “sandwiching”.
“Now we have a thin-skinned overly sensitive group running things, and people who can’t stand being dissed, and who are easily offended.”
They are starting to frame unkind or “disrespectful” words as “psychological assault”. I wonder if that’s worse than second-hand smoke or fragrance or wearing fur or smelling as if one has just consumed a baby cow or feeling happy instead of guilty for being “privileged”.
“When I think I have it bad, I think about the Warsaw ghetto or central Africa, and I cheer right up.”
That would indicate that you are “privileged” and are otherwise subject to “feelings” that have not been approved by the authorities. Show some respect. 😉

Aphan
June 27, 2014 10:08 am

I believe it is possible to learn great lessons from the worst, weakest of people. What not to do, how not to act or react. Every person we encounter can teach us something, or change how we thought of something prior, or be one more piece of evidence that reinforces our past experience. Not all learning experiences are pleasant ones. I’ve found in my life that the hardest lessons were the ones I needed the most, and that as stubborn as I am, they had to be difficult to reach me fully.
I also think there is a difference between basic human courtesy and respect. I can shake Mann’s hand and remain silent about my feelings about his work without respecting him in the least. As has been pointed out, respect is earned. But so is distrust in an equal and opposite fashion. It’s entirely possible that upon getting to know Mann personally, I might develop respect for him as a father, friend, neighbor etc. He might be able to teach me great lessons, even in negative ways. If I truly value and seek for knowledge and wisdom for myself, I must be willing to accept that it can come in the most unexpected ways.

huxley
June 27, 2014 10:29 am

I believe it is possible to learn great lessons from the worst, weakest of people. What not to do, how not to act or react.
To be sure, but you decide the lessons you will learn from people and those lessons are not always the lessons those people believe they are teaching.
As I understand Caleb, he speaks of accepting the knowledge his teachers offered, as opposed to learning from their possibly bad examples.

EW3
June 27, 2014 10:44 am

The only truly original thought I have ever had —
“Wisdom is knowing what not to do”

Evan Jones
Editor
June 27, 2014 10:50 am

Good post, here much food for thought. I made an early WUWT guest post on “whom to trust” back in aught-8. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/who-decides/
I also grew up during the “wormhole”, although i was a “good kid” (lord yelp me).
Much of my skill with the use of the English language was absorbed from schoolmarm’s tongue-lashings.
For me, it was H.L. Menken. (Same deal, really.)
but when my hormones hit and I swiftly loomed taller than they, all my study of their use of English came back to haunt them.
They had created a monster.

I am a Liberal. Trained in deconstruction and the dialectic. And they hate it when their own weapons are turned against them. Gander sauce.

JoeCivis
June 27, 2014 10:55 am

As it has been stated above the treat others as you want to be treated is usually a good start. I would also like to point out that treating someone respectfully does not mean you respect their intellect or opinion, although it allows you the opportunity to find out their opinion and possibly influence them. I also agree that the current state of affairs in America and perhaps the world has people entirely much too “thin skinned” what ever happened to the “sticks and stone will break your bones but words will never hurt you” wisdom? I believe it is the “progressive” victim mindset that fosters the “I’m perfect”, “I deserve it”, “you’re oppressing me” mantras that are dragging the US down.

Evan Jones
Editor
June 27, 2014 11:04 am

One day when I was sitting in detention, the guy next to me — out of the blue — turned and stabbed me in the arm with a sharp pencil. I still have the mark to this day. I didn’t utter a peep and I didn’t fink him out, either: There are some rules one must obey, some customs which are inviolable.

tadchem
June 27, 2014 11:05 am

I lost all ‘blind’ respect for my ‘elders’ when I was 8 years old, in the 4th grade. I had a teacher accuse me of cheating on a test of long division simply because I got a perfect score on the quiz, I didn’t show any work (because I had done it all in my head), and I was able to write down the answers as fast as she wrote the problems on the blackboard.

Josh
June 27, 2014 11:15 am

Not trying to hijack the comments section or get too far off topic, so mods, do as you feel…
Pamela Gray says:
June 27, 2014 at 9:08 am
First, thanks for engaging. I always learn a lot from your comments and replies.
I think you helped prove my point without realizing it, though. The Constitution was framed in such a way that as times, philosophies, attitudes and society in general changed (and/or change in the future) there is a framework for how to go about amending it. Again, that was deliberate and the process well documented and planned for. When they said “all men” they meant just as you said – all white men. As the people of the States (too) slowly came to realize that it was not right at all to exclude everyone who was not a white man, the framework they put in place was used to correct that mistake and make this country even better for all.
The problem, as I see it, lies in misinterpreting the words written. A good example is the constant attack on all religions in public events and places. The 1st Amendment guarantees that there shall be no infringement upon the free exercise of any religion. They wanted everyone to be free to practice whatever religion they believe in wherever and whenever without fear of persecution or prosecution. Again well documented in their own words and supported by their actions as all of the founding fathers were active members of their churches and started all of their official meetings with prayer.
That’s also why the Declaration of Independence emphatically states that the rights of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness are granted by the Creator, and not given out by men and governments. The leftist revisionist historians continue to try to argue that they were not religious at all, but the actual evidence overwhelmingly proves they were religious and actively so.The separation of church and state was intended to prevent the government form enforcing only one religion that all must follow like the king had done. Now, where have I heard that an idea is not supported by evidence before? Trying to remember… Oh yeah, the entire AGW scam, which oddly enough is being pushed the most by the leftists and progressives.
As for the bible, there’s no end to the arguments with that book. However, I think, again, the majority of the problems come from a lack of understanding what was actually written, versus the modern translations (hence the multitude of “versions”), and what it meant at the time. Or, they result from an intentional “misinterpretation” or from taking one idea or statement out of context. I don’t believe everything that is written in the bible, but the majority of it taken in context and viewed with a basic understanding of the time/location in which it was written as well as the societal norms of the time provides a solid foundation of how to treat other people and the world around us in general.
Classic example is “spare the rod and spoil the child.” That is not a reference to corporal punishment as most people think and have been taught. A “rod” in the time/region it was written was a tool used by the shepherds. The meaning of the phrase is if you don’t make your child help with work/chores, you will spoil him/her and make them lazy. The vast majority of people I tell that to look at me with the confused puppy dog look and act like I’m speaking gibberish. I tell them to look it up for themselves but they don’t. They just tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about and go about being blissfully ignorant of the world around them.
Basically, they react like a climate scientologist who is shown the error(s) in her/his research. They resort to ad hominems, hand waving, or appeals to authority and go on blissfully unaware of the real issues with their work and pretend like they know all and no one is qualified to tell them they are wrong.
OK, time to get down off the pile of soapboxes I am standing on and get back to work.

huxley
June 27, 2014 11:32 am

I wasn’t 8 years old in the fourth grade, but I was bright enough to annoy some of my teachers. I had one English teacher on my case for all of high school because I told her I had read a library book in one night.
Caleb: This is the problem with respecting teachers as though they were knowledge millionaires. Many of them really were small-minded jerks who even got the knowledge part of their job wrong. That same teacher also taught the Gerard Manley Hopkins line from “God’s Grandeur” about “the ooze of oil crushed” was about popping a pimple.
Sure, some teachers know their stuff. Some of them are even wise. But how do you separate the wheat from the chaff when you’re just a kid?

Michael J. Dunn
June 27, 2014 12:48 pm

These are all life lessons, but insofar as science is concerned, be mindful of the fact that it is founded on honesty and telling the truth. Without that, it is literally impossible to conduct it. Last I heard, honesty and truth-telling were profoundly moral issues.
Which brings us to “climate science”…

Zeke
June 27, 2014 12:53 pm

“Basically I wanted to do things elders would disapprove of, and didn’t want to hear elders rebuke me for doing things that they claimed were bad for me. Therefore, instead of learning from elders, I learned the hard way that many of the things they said were bad for me were, in fact, bad.” ~Caleb Shaw
Apparently there is a small percentage of the Boomer Generation who has reflected back on the reason for their “rebellion” – and the subsequent cultural changes that they brought about – and have had the candor to admit that there was no substance to it. The free love, drugs, rock and roll, flirtation with communism were just the satisfaction of personal desires, nothing more. The Boomers did not want any constraints on themselves and proceeded to remove the outward constraints in society to suit themselves.
I have tested, observed, and questioned, and my observation is that no descent of the country into sexual depravity, drug use, or loss of personal responsibility can ever cause Boomers to consider that their social experiment has had disastrous affects.
But occasionally one or two from that generation are honest. It makes a difference, and it is still a wonderful conversation to have, even if it seems far, far too late for that.

huxley
June 27, 2014 12:59 pm

Caleb: What would you do if you were a high school student today and the schoolmarms were teaching you climate change, multiculturalism, and the Howard Zinn history of the United States?
Would you be soaking up that information rather than trying to reinvent the wheel?
Unless one passively accepts society’s current worldview, one is stuck with having to reinvent the wheel to some extent — at least choosing which set of parts to work with.
However impudent it may seem for a young person, or any person, to reinvent the world on their own say-so, there is no way around it I can see. If you just accept what’s given you, that’s still a choice, though perhaps an unconscious one.

June 27, 2014 1:01 pm

Slightly on topic…
There is a large (and nicely printed) sign in a gift shop I know – a very nice one to boot – which reads:
“Unaccompanied children will be given a double expresso and a puppy.”

huxley
June 27, 2014 1:04 pm

I have tested, observed, and questioned, and my observation is that no descent of the country into sexual depravity, drug use, or loss of personal responsibility can ever cause Boomers to consider that their social experiment has had disastrous affects.
Almost all Boomers I know have come to their own reservations about the sixties/seventies experiments, though perhaps not to your satisfaction.

CaligulaJones
June 27, 2014 1:22 pm

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45122/45122-h/45122-h.htm#Page_190
Every true Science is like a hardy Alpine guide that leads us on from the narrow, though it may be the more peaceful and charming, valleys of our preconceived opinions, to higher points, apparently less attractive, nay often disappointing for a time, till, after hours of patient and silent climbing, we look round and see a new world around us.
PROFESSOR MAX MÜLLER

June 27, 2014 1:41 pm

Some children are adults growing up and don’t have that reference to ‘doing things that elders will disapprove of’. Your article is off the mark if you think we are all the same growing up. Respect is a two way street regardless of age. I didn’t have that sheltered, naïve view of the world. As John Steinbeck said in one of his forwards, that most children know adults are not all good. Adults lie, cheat, steal, and do a lot of bad things. I never had that jee wiz feelings to kneel before the great and powerful OZ. (not the country) . In this on going debate, why call it a debate if the science is settled, I’ve actually had an alarmist say, ” but they are climate scientists”. Yea, So? I’m not going to take their word for it if I think differently. If anything, I show you where you are wrong, and you refuse to acknowledge it, who is being disrespectful? I will be disrespectful when you want to haul me off to be tried as a criminal for disagreeing with you, it’s still a democracy not a dictatorship. — Now that the results don’t match the predictions, do you think I should just let this go?—- Still sitting in your ivory towers? Such moral and ethical dilemmas

Zeke
June 27, 2014 1:42 pm

“I actually think it isn’t a schoolmarm’s duty to discipline boys. That job is the father’s.” ~C Shaw
And this is the most important observation on the table. The fact of the matter is that the true source of human intelligence, or even giftedness, is developed in the context of close family bonds. People are not profoundly affected by the presence of a lot of classmates, co-workers, and other social relationships. We are shaped by the very few close relationships we have in life. These relationships help to structure and organize the brain in early life, and this profound restructuring of the brain can happen into the senior years, through marriage. And if these relationships are not present, the brain cannot organize itself in a meaningful, coherent way. Intelligence is supported most of all by loving relationships.
The Boomers brought a profound break with their parents, and scoffed at the importance of the committed life-long marriage. The Boomers exacerbated the alienation with their parents – which was in some cases justified by schoolmarm attitudes – by permanently burning bridges. The use of drugs, throw-away marriages and children, and self-aggrandizement through career ambitions was the method of this near total destruction of the bonds between the generations. This bond between generations is very important to balanced emotional, intellectual, and spiritual development. But now it is so entrenched in society, that no one is able to question the idea that experts ought to educate and raise the children. Now the disconnection of loving, stable family relationships is institutionalized, and even enforced by putting boys on drugs and dressing girls in skimpy clothes; but most Boomers who are in positions of power in media, academia, & entertainment – rather than look at what they have wrought – want to rip out a few more pillars of free society (like personal transportation, flight, energy, agriculture, and the middle class) before they exit stage left. For it is the middle class that they hated most. That is the root of the matter, imo: all of the Boomers attacked and assaulted the middle class, whether they were on the right or left.

huxley
June 27, 2014 1:59 pm

Zeke: You might want to consider a finer-grained view of Boomers.
All Boomers are not the same. Even at the height of the counterculture, the majority of American youth were straight.
Speaking for myself and several of my hippie friends, we are now conservatives and share concerns similar to yours about the repercussions of the counterculture.
Boomers are powerful now because they are the age where a generation peaks in power. The problem is not Boomers per se, but the liberal/leftist Boomers who have consolidated control of academia, Hollywood, the media, the Democratic Party and government bureaucracies.

Zeke
June 27, 2014 2:20 pm

Huxley says in part, “Boomers are powerful now because they are the age where a generation peaks in power. The problem is not Boomers per se, but the liberal/leftist Boomers who have consolidated control of academia, Hollywood, the media, the Democratic Party and government bureaucracies.”
This is utterly central to the discussion. The Boomers are in the highest positions in society, and it is their attitudes about environmentalism and human life that are coming to their logical conclusions right now. Leftist Boomers are one thing, but the drugs are flowing thick and deep in our country, and Boomers are the ones who not only brought this about, but are now working night and day on the right to continue the flooding of our country with drugs, by removing any and all of our local controls and legalizing everything. The drugs are extremely harmful to local communities and to family relationships, and to the developing brain. I suggest the Boomers on the right are also progressives in many ways, and are brutally culling out any conservatives from the GOP. You may disagree.
Boomers include anyone born to a WWII family or veteran, and I think only extend to 1955 or so, but I don’t know where the cut-off point is.

Caleb
June 27, 2014 2:54 pm

“I had the Right to Remain Silent, but Not the Ability”.
‘There are old pilots and bold pilots, but the are no old bold pilots’!
“Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment”
Great Truth often hides in good humor.

huxley
June 27, 2014 3:12 pm

Zeke: We seem to agree but then you go off on drugs and practically sound like Col. Ripper talking about precious bodily fluids in Dr. Strangelove.
Boomers didn’t bring drugs about. I smoked my first joint with my mother and uncle. Alcohol of course has been around forever and can’t be blamed on Boomers. Likewise nicotine, another dangerous drug, the usage of which has decreased under Boomers. Amphetamines were brought to us by the WWII generation and have become more of a problem in heartland communities. Almost no one is talking about legalizing amphetamines.
Not all boomers are for drugs. Frank Zappa, leader of the notorious Mothers of Invention rock group, was earnestly against drugs his entire life.
Drugs aren’t all the same either. The worst damage I’ve seen was from alcohol and amphetamines. Marijuana was nowhere near either of those.
Communism and socialism have been immense problems. Drugs had little to do with either.
Boomers on the right cover a lot of ground. I don’t see that they are “brutally culling out any conservatives from the GOP” unless one has a specific, purist notion of conservativism, which may be the case with you.
As far as I’m concerned the problem we face is leftist ideology. Your generalizations strike me as odd and unuseful.

Caleb
June 27, 2014 3:31 pm

RE: Tom J says:
June 27, 2014 at 6:06 am
And I respectfully disagree with your disagreement, good Sir, though I confess you sound like an interesting person to talk with, as you seem to understand what a debacle Prohibition was.
First, I think our founding fathers likely did discuss all sorts of situations that might arise, and what sorts of checks and balances might best be put on place to restrain not only tyrants, but do-gooders. They surely had examples of Puritans who got out of hand, attempting to outlaw behavior that Puritans deemed bad.
Second, both the establishment and abolishing of Prohibition likely occurred in a manner they would have approved of, even if they thought Prohibition itself was a stupid idea.
Talk about the law of unintended consequences! I wonder if the do-gooders who desired prohibition had any idea they would make gangsters so powerful and wealthy?
When I think about the 1960’s I recall the movie, “Bonnie and Clyde,” which attempted to glorify two people who’s behavior was not admirable. In that movie I see a failure to differentiate between wild and free behavior, such as sky diving or bull riding, and behavior which actually hurts your fellow man. I assume this failure to differentiate was born, or perhaps gained steam, in the simple-minded do-gooder effort called Prohibition.
Even as I sit here, sipping a beer after a long, hot Friday, I recognize alcohol makes some ugly and foul. I understand why some hate the stuff. However the worst offenders a hundred years ago were not those who drank beer or wine, but those who drank whisky. If Prohibition had been constructed with any sense, it likely should have been enacted as a high sin-tax on hard liquor, and left the Constitution out of it.
However it is a fascinating topic, and worthy of further study and discussion.

Zeke
June 27, 2014 3:33 pm

The glorification of drug use was the cause celebre of the Hippies and any objective observer knows that. Saying that it was in circulation before that does not address the fact that this was central to the Hippy movement and to the hippy identity.
I am pointing out that drugs are destructive physiologically and extremely harmful to family relationships. But it is difficult to even have that discussion. We now live in a society which accepts putting one fourth of the boys in schools on street drugs.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ritalin&client=firefox-a&hs=QRg&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=3PCtU4jvGZL6oATI54CAAQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1025&bih=493
No one will be honest about the real devastating effects of drugs on brain development. No one. In fact, if a child is diagnosed for ADD, some schools can force parents to put their child on medication.