If youth is wasted on the young, then graduations ...

Then graduations and graduation speeches are wasted BY the young.

This is connected to my post last night about small town values.

Hearing small-town, small-county high school grads with their speeches, whether at a private school or one of the public ones? Blech. Maybe my suburban St. Louis val and sal, eons ago, had similar blather. I hated high school and don't remember. I'm sure my last-graduating-class Lutheran college val and sal kind of did, but not totally.

Anyway, the speeches Thursday and Friday, even though largely out of the mouths of Catholics, were full of "everything has a purpose" providentialism. That's Calvinism, ultimately, if you will. Surprised that teachers at the private school at least — which is Catholic — don't catch that. That said, modern American Catholicism in both its more conservative and its more liberal installations strikes me ever more as a mishmash of individually held doctrines, fairly influenced by Protestantism, with the possible exception of Eastern and Southern European "ethnic" enclaves in the Northeast and Rust Belt. I'm not even sure about Irish Catholics in those areas.

Of course, this becomes wedded to success gospel Christianity. I heard this year, and in years past, variations on "all you have to do is have the right attitude and work hard and you'll succeed." This all ignores luck (in a non-metaphysical sense) — both good luck and bad luck.

That said, this wasn't the worst.

Far from it.

And, it was only exacerbated tonight at one of the two small high schools I was at when the valedictorian offered prayers for selected class members who were essentially "hostages," including two Indian-Americans who might well not be Christian. With last name "Patel" and first names that are definitely Indian and not Christian-like, I think that's pretty likely. More disgusting yet? The opening theme of his speech, since he is not native to that small town, was gratitude for being accepted.  

To be honest, emotionally honest, I hope this guy and some other of these speakers learn personally, the hard way, just how wrong, or Not.Even.Wrong., they are. I think it will have to be the hard way, because I don't think that unless they face real personal tribulation from which they don't immediately bounce back, they will learn. (That said, this part is probably true of big city high school val and sal speakers, too, at least to some extent. I don't know about Hispanics, and Christianity is lower among Asian Americans, but I know that the success gospel runs hot among Black America.)

Coronavirus, churches, Romans 13 and First Amendment versus greed, ego, rebellion and the Success Gospel

About two weeks ago, I blogged that the government can indeed close churches at a time like this, as long as the closures are for an appropriate heath emergency (they are, duh), and are applied to all churches equally, as well as to all faith traditions equally, as an additional note for the wingnuts who claim Merika is a Christian nation.

A main link in that piece was a news analysis story from the Deseret News, one of two mainstream media daily newspapers in Salt Lake City.

Guess who owns it?

In case you didn't know, the answer is the Mormon Church.

 
I also noted that many nondenominational churches were of course ignoring, or even actively fighting, church closures. I said they were ignoring "submit to the governing authorities" in Romans 13:

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 

and noted that was not surprising. Many of the English and Scots-Irish early American settlers came here with a history of rebelling against the English or Scottish crowns pre-1707 union of them, or the British throne after that. And of course, their successors also ignored Romans 13 in 1775, including Declaration of Independence signer John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister.

That's the "rebellion" in the second line of the header.

There's a couple of other reasons involved too, though.

One is ego.

Though listed second on the second line of the header, I'll start with it on the additional reasons, because it's connected with rebellion.

Many of these independent churches are independent for a reason.

Some guy (they're almost entirely men who are fighting closure orders)* thinks that he and only he understands the bible. Therefore, he has to start his own church. (See end of post for asterisk.)

In some cases, there's a Svengali-like personality involved, to boot. Maybe that's why so many of them are hardcore Trumpists to the point of ignoring his essential irreligiosity. Cultism is as cultism does, to quote Forrest Gump.

Well, here, besides the old saying that schadenfreude is a bitch, there's the biblical saying that "pride goes before a fall."

And that fall?

Could literally be deadly, as was the case earlier this week with coronavirus-mocking pastor Landon Spradlin. Per that link, he was a Trumper — and his family continues to drink the Kool-Aid afterward.

There's also the ego of being your own boss. A Southern Baptist pastor may have some of that freedom, but even there, he faces some denominational strictures. An independent? Nobody's his boss but the members of his church and their wallets.

Speaking of?

Let's get next to the first and last parts of the second line of the header, as they're connected: "greed" and "Success Gospel."

With independent ministers, whether of the megachurches, the mini-megs, or the new startups who dream, greed is often a factor in being a minister. A quick Google will tell you the worth of Kenneth Copeland, Joe Osteen, Creflo Dollar and others.

Even a start-up guy, if he gets 200 regular members a week, hammers tithing hard, gets a good response and is renting a storefront rather than a traditional church building, can easily gross $75K

And, of course, besides hammering tithing hard, hammering the Success Gospel's ties to it are also important.

But, back to Landon Spradlin, and from him, on to Luke 12 versus the Social Gospel. Specifically, it's the parable of the Rich Fool:

“The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

And there you go.

There is, I think, an element of fear as well.

Pastors are considered self-employed, and thus, generally not eligible for unemployment benefits. And besides, until a church officially closes for good, they're not unemployed.

But, it they believe in a god both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, they should then remember what Jesus said in the Beatitudes about the birds of the air and the lilies of the field not worrying.

==

*For the women who are conservative evangelicals or fundamentalists but yet are pastors or church leaders by any other name?

There's good old pseudo-Paul in 1 Timothy 2:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Love the ladies who ignore that. I had a former GF who loved Joyce Meyer. I'd argue that Meyer falls in that category, teaching to men.

==

Addition: These nutters are also ignorant of church history. (Of course.) In medieval Europe, since the village church or town cathedral WAS the agora or forum, it worked to prevent the spread from one village or region to another. The churches themselves? Some were open, but in many cases, priests ran away. And, with daily masses, peasants could probably practice a crude form of social distancing.

==

Update, July 26: My take on Gov. Gavin Newsom's latest orders and the latest round of sinful rebellion in California.

Trump signs Bibles? So did Dear Leader, others It's still grotesquely chasing Mammon as I see it

Everybody and their grandmother mentioned in the Biblical genealogy of Two Corinithians has by now heard of Trump autographing Bibles for Alabama tornado victims.

This:

President Trump is signing bibles for  volunteers and survivors at a Baptist church in Alabama. pic.twitter.com/9b8VfyZiKF

— Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) March 8, 2019

is yet another reason this leftist, contra Arlie Russell Hochschild and fellow librulz, doesn't do "listening tours."

And actually, Trump autographing bibles (did he sign the first page of "Two Corinthians"? did he get his "cracker" [of the many crackers there]?) is only half as vulgar and one quarter as irreligious as the people who asked him for the autographs.

And, it's not just "the left" calling Trump out, contra fellow travelers at Red State:

I don’t know who it is a worse commentary on: Trump actually signing Bibles in Alabama, or the people asking him to sign a Bible.  Lordy Moses.

— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) March 8, 2019

That said, if Obama also did it, even for MLK's family, it's still theologically grotesque in my corner of the world.

But, that's Merikan Xianity, especially Southern style, in my corner of the world.

And, if the "Mammon" of which Jesus warned includes fame as well as money, this secularist, looking from the outside, says it is un-christian. It's also halfway to being a success gospel.

And, as for you Trump train riders?  Matthew 7:6 is right here:

"Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine."

Aren't you glad secularists know the Bible better than you?

Where are all these Texas atheists?

Near the end of its latest poll on the Beto O'Rourke-Ted Cruz Senate Race, Lyceum reports on the background of respondents, as most in-depth polls do.

There's this, on page 11: NINE percent claim to be atheist or agnostic. That's more than twice as many as who reported as Muslim. Throw out the 13 percent who were either "didn't know" (really?) or "refused," and you're at a little over 10 percent.

Really?

That said, counting 22 percent as either unaligned or third party, Lyceum claimed respondents were otherwise split, 39 percent each on Doinks and Rethugs.

Really?

But, let's get back to those atheists and agnostics.

I'm quite familiar with people misusing these terms to really mean "spiritual but not religious," or "irreligious vis-a-vis organized religion."

Let's say half our 10 percent falls there.

That's still 5 percent atheist or agnostic.

Let's say that 8 percentage points of the 13 percent refusniks are "nones," as are all 9 percent, in the original number, of alleged atheists or agnostics. Then, one-sixth of Texans are "nones."

That leads me to a piece by Psy Post. Until Friday, it seemed to me to be a pretty good psychology popularization blog and website. John Horgan is among its Twitter followers.

But then it blared: You live longer if you're religious.

Without saying that all we have on that is statistical correlation, not causal correlation, and without, in the western tradition, comparing today's US to today's Europe on that. (Well, it did kind of say that, but after the "blaring.")

Given that the power of intercessory prayer has been disproven by double blinded studies, in fact, we can say that almost certainly, it is NOT a causal correlation.

Add to that the fact that, especially in small towns, "church" and non-church general religious affiliation adds a degree of "community" to life for many people, especially in a place like red-state Texas. Also note that, especially in smaller communities, for those in need, many food banks and other forms of charitable outreach are church-based, or if not so explicit, at least religiously themed.

The only way to do a halfway scientific version of such a survey would be to look at churched vs unchurched people who are both also members of other organizations, like Rotary, Kiwanis, etc. And, you'd have to use more than obits. You'd have to use longitudinal time management research to confirm how often said people actually attended both churches and their social clubs.

And, there's been plenty of empirical research on the reality of a god already.

Speaking of empirical matters, we do also know that, by percentage of respective ethnic groups, more of those atheists are white than black or hispanic, but we also know that young blacks are consciously starting to catch up on leaving church, in part because African-Americans are finding more "secular" leaders willing to speak on "spiritual" issues. Like LeBron. Or Kaepernick. This is even as Congressional Black Caucus leader Jim Clyburn will suck up to Trump as much as those black ministers, to avoid churches paying new taxes.

==

Update, with some related stats? In 2019, 23 percent of Americans went to church every week. Sounds fairly devoted, right, every week? But 29 percent never went once. Texas, Bible Belt stereotypes aside, is no exception. This site says that it was less than 20 percent, and they're a religious website.

#Libertarianism: The flip side of the #NewAge success coin

New Ageism, and its more religious offshoot, the success gospel (and similar movements outside Christianity) all teach that if a person simply believes hard enough, long enough, deep enough, success -- usually defined in materialist terms -- will happen. A term often used is "manifesting."

Meanwhile, libertarianism?

Its believers, especially of the more Randian/Objectivist wing, are told that if they're hard-headed enough, hard-hearted enough, ruthless enough, long enough, success -- invariably defined in materialist terms -- will happen. A term often used is "libertarianism."

A more accurate term is "Social Darwinism." For New Ageism, a more accurate term is "Social Darwinism with lipstick."

Choice, bad situations, New Ageism, witchery, prosperity gospel

Trust me, as I normally do, I'll wind these things all together.

At a recent presentation about small-town revitalization, the presenter, representing a regional para-government organization, talked about people "choosing" to be in this particular city, with its struggles and all.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong on so many levels.

First, as I noted in an essay at Scientia Salon, with a follow up on this blog, here, this does not take into account issues of "psychological determinism" that constrain our actions to some degree.

Related to that, while not deterministic in the volitional sense, the Great Recession has of course battered the economy, and, as this presenter knows — since that's part of the reason for the meetings she's held in several counties, and has been explicitly mentioned by her — most small towns have had slower recovery, and more incomplete recovery, than big cities.

That said, the presenter mentioned prosperity/success gospel wealth guru Dave Ramsey in the next sentence, so she probably believes we can transcend such things. Of course, the prosperity gospel is just New Ageism with a Christian baptism.

That said, showing how well the Jesus dross works, say something wide-eyed, and attach the name of Ramsey, or Joyce Meyer, or whomever, and lots of Christian folks will swallow it whole. Attach the name of Oprah, and some conservatives might balk, but some more liberal Christians might buy in. Attach the name of the late Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh, and we're in a whole different ballpark. After all, if a place can have people seeing magic as witchcraft, seemingly not so uncommon in this state, dividing lines can be firm, yet still perhaps hypocritical.

One word of advice to #graduates — and it's not #plastics

The “plastics” reference, which many of today’s graduates might not even catch, is from dialogue in the movie, “The Graduate,” between Mr. McGuire (Walter Brooke) and Ben (Dustin Hoffman), as also shown in the clip above.

Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Ben: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire Are you listening?
Ben: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Plastics.
Ben: Just how do you mean that, sir?

I’m not Steve Jobs, Steven Spielberg, or a past or present president of the United States. So, I don’t get a lot of graduation speaking gigs. (If only they knew what they were missing.)

But, in an occasional newspaper column, and occasional blog piece, I’ve written about graduation before. I’ve noted that it’s not a finish line. Related to that, I’ve said that it’s just one step in life; I once compared it to being a rite of passage.

The Jobses and others of the world seem to be dripping with pearls of wisdom. But if not, since this is the Internet era, people make up fake speeches that they think these people, or a Bill Cosby, a George Carlin, or some other comedian or humorist should have given.

Whether in real or fake versions, these speeches try to have an aura of timelessness. That’s also important in today’s Internet era. No speaker, or speaker faker, wants to refer to the latest social media trend and thus produce a speech that may have an 18-month shelf life rather than a potentially timeless one.

So, old proverbs get updated and polished. Religious insights get a more generic spirituality and rebranded. Sports and other competition clichés get trotted out.

Behind all of this, there’s one element that seems to be hovering in the background, and, because of that, another element that’s blocked out.

The background element seems to be that, in some ways, life is relatively simple or predictable. And, that idea tends to shove aside the one that life has a fair element of luck

Now, by “luck,” I don’t mean any metaphysical force. Rather, to trot out two of those old clichés, I mean something like, “That’s the way the ball bounces,” or “That’s the way the cookie crumbles.”

And, sometimes, that’s exactly what happens. And we even have an old saying for that: “There but for the grace of God go I.”

The end of high school, or the end of college, may seem a time of near-invincibility. And, of course, belief in one’s invincibility never wants to let luck enter into the picture.

If I were to be asked to give a few thoughts today, they’d probably touch a lot on luck.

For new high school or college graduates, luck can change a job path, a career path or a study path. It can open one’s mind, if a person is ready for that. It can provide a bit of humbleness, without humiliation, if someone is open to accepting that he or she isn’t in total control. Or, it can provide a little bit of humiliation to anyone who doesn’t want to accept that.

Luck can also provide a degree of connectedness. Per the “There but for the grace of God go I” proverb, luck can tell people the reason they did or did not get a new job, a raise, or a promotion, or a new boyfriend or girlfriend, isn’t always due to rational reasons, but sometimes, due to luck.

In short, as graduates prepare to enter the edges of the adult world, thinking about luck can be a reminder that a new version of Social Darwinism, repeatedly plugged by Tea Party types that seems to be growing stronger in America, that certain material rewards or achievements are “proof” of one’s own skill, especially one’s own inherited, inborn skill, simply aren’t true.

Beyond Social Darwinism, a similar, religiously spit-polished version of this is promoted as the Success Gospel. Here, it’s not what genes you inherited that are behind your success. Rather, this is all a mark of blessing from God.

Well, at spots in the Hebrew Tanakh, and the Christian Bible, God doesn’t like storing up wealth very much. Read Amos, for example, or the Sermon on the Mount. But, at other times, like in Psalms and Proverbs, he’s pretty much “down” with getting rich as a sign of his favor to humans indeed.

As a secularist, I find this as bad as Social Darwinism. I find the New Agey version of the Success Gospel even worse, if anything. Neither the virililty of one's genes, nor the strength of one’s faithful willpower, with NO apologies to either Schopenhauer or Hitler, has a tremendous amount of connection with a lot material success for a lot of people.

Rather, it’s that good, old, non-metaphysical randomness that we call “luck.”

So, 2014 graduates? Take that word with you. For your peace of mind, it’s a lot more valuable than “plastics.” And, with an American population expected to hit 400 million by 2050, and a world population of 9 billion by then, you're going to need a lot of it.

All that's wrong with charter schools in one short story

"Millennial" generation short-term focus, even narcissism.

Hypercapitalism.

Neoliberalism, including the Teach for America program.

Taylorism, going one better on educational pedagogy ideas of 50-75 years ago.

It's all right here, in this New York Times story about the growing charter school movement.

Here's the narcissism, short-timer syndrome, career-ladder move, etc.:

Tyler Dowdy just started his third year of teaching at YES Prep West, a charter school here. He figures now is a good time to explore his next step, including applying for a supervisory position at the school. 

Mr. Dowdy is 24 years old, which might make his restlessness seem premature. But then, his principal is 28. Across YES Prep’s 13 schools, teachers have an average of two and a half years of experience.  

Hey, a lot of teachers burn out in their first couple of years. That's deliberate from not viewing teaching as a vocation or a calling, but rather a stepping stone to other jobs. Isn't part of this, the rapid career advancement part, about Millennial narcissism? "Three years here, check that resume box, and could look good in the world of finance! Maybe I can even become a charter schools financial analyst! Occupy Me!"

And, yes, as I blogged about the original, actual Occupy Wall Street movement in New York City's Zuccoti Park, there is a lot of that spirit around. That comes from Occupiers' own demographic self-identification.

The neoliberalism? Here comes Teach for America!

The notion of a foreshortened teaching career was largely introduced by Teach for America, which places high-achieving college graduates into low-income schools for two years. Today, Teach for America places about a third of its recruits in charter schools. 

“Strong schools can withstand the turnover of their teachers,” said Wendy Kopp, the founder of Teach for America. “The strongest schools develop their teachers tremendously so they become great in the classroom even in their first and second years.” 

Shock me. I'd argue that with the short-term commitment idea, Teach for America is about "volunteerism porn." Don't get me wrong, the broader AmeriCorps movement does some good. But, it's all part of that "Points of Light" syndrome that started under Poppy Bush and that neolib Democrats have been unable to ignore. And, shock me that Teach for America founder Wendy Kopp has an impeccable establishmentarian background. Another fine product of Highland Park.

And, let's also take note, as the New York Times did not, that her husband is president of America's largest charter-school network. Just a bit of conflict of interest, eh? But great for money-grubbing!

And, a Facebook friend points out a great speech related to this by social philosopher Ivan Illich which, while dated in some areas, overall addresses some of the same issues about volunteerism porn.

An excerpt or two:

Today, the existence of organizations like yours is offensive to Mexico. ...

For the past six years I have become known for my increasing opposition to the presence of any and all North American "dogooders" in Latin America. I am sure you know of my present efforts to obtain the voluntary withdrawal of all North American volunteer armies from Latin America - missionaries, Peace Corps members and groups like yours, a "division" organized for the benevolent invasion of Mexico.

I did not come here to argue. I am here to tell you, if possible to convince you, and hopefully, to stop you, from pretentiously imposing yourselves on Mexicans. ...

I do have deep faith in the enormous good will of the U.S. volunteer. However, his good faith can usually be explained only by an abysmal lack of intuitive delicacy. By definition, you cannot help being ultimately vacationing salesmen for the middle-class "American Way of Life," since that is really the only life you know. ...

Next to money and guns, the third largest North American export is the U.S. idealist, who turns up in every theater of the world: the teacher, the volunteer, the missionary, the community organizer, the economic developer, and the vacationing do-gooders.

OK, so "mission vacationers" might equal "charter short-termers." If the idealism is actually idealistic, Illich is still saying it doesn't translate, whether to Mexico, or to the inner cities of America, which he specifically mentions later in the piece. The rest of his insights flow from there by analogy. (That said, given that Illich had bones in his craw about various aspects of modern Westernism, including modern medicine, he always needs to be taken with a grain of salt.)

So, to put words in the mouth of a new Teach for America student? 

"Teach poor students for 2 years? Yay, me!" But, ask what we can do to reverse income inequality, and to do so for the poor, not just the middle class? Different story, usually.

Meanwhile, let's look again at Kopp's puffery, including the second sentence:

“Strong schools can withstand the turnover of their teachers,” said Wendy Kopp, the founder of Teach for America. “The strongest schools develop their teachers tremendously so they become great in the classroom even in their first and second years.” 

Uhh, wrong. 

Studies have shown that on average, teacher turnover diminishes student achievement. Advocates who argue that teaching should become more like medicine or law say that while programs like Teach for America fill a need in the short term, educational leaders should be focused on improving training and working environments so that teachers will invest in long careers. 

“To become a master plumber you have to work for five years,” said Ronald Thorpe, president of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, a nonprofit group that certifies accomplished teachers. “Shouldn’t we have some kind of analog to that with the people we are entrusting our children to?”

Yep. 

And, along with neoliberalism and the Great Recession, comes working these people longer hours, making sure they're "on call" longer, etc.

Next, neoliberalism + narcissism meet Business New Agism. It's "career coach" time, under a new name.

Every other week, new teachers meet with instructional coaches for 45-minute sessions

At this point, I officially threw up in my mouth. We now get an introduction to Taylorism being placed in charter schools. Note that a lot of the instruction is about getting kids to "present" better and other things.

Actually, of course, there are other things besides this that are wrong with charter schools. Those include them often being run for short-term profit (in that case, teachers at charters are just learning to act like owners/operators), approaching teaching as a commodity.

Meanwhile, I've not even touched too much on other issues with charter schools, like the whole profit angle in general. It's like utility deregulation in spades.

Many of the charter schools are under a neoliberal or big-business conservative mindset, like KIPP is. Others are religious, and it's usually not traditional Catholic schools trying to repackage themselves. Instead, it's usually vaguely "Protestant" success gospel churches and para-churches, often black ones in big cities, starting them. (And, I have personal knowledge of that last bit from my days in metro Dallas.)

And, I see that KIPP is expanding its presence in Dallas, specifically south Dallas. And, judging by the name of one of its schools, it's either partnering with black success gospel preachers or else pandering to them.

Meanwhile, as Thomas Frank has just detailed, parallel problems continue to grow in academia, too. My thoughts on his latest offering for The Baffler are here.

The varieties of Social Darwinism worth rejecting

This post starts with three main observations.

One is that Social Darwinism, whether under that name or not, has a long history in America.

The second is that, in general, this has been more a respected than a disrespected position in American social, political and even religious thought.

The third is that, along with increasing income inequality, a renewed focus on Social Darwinism started in Reagan's time.

That said, let's jump to the theme of the header.

I see modern American Social Darwinism falling into four main streams.

One of them is definitely rooted in its earliest days. The second, under somewhat different guises, is, too. The third goes back a century or so, longer than most people think, and has permutated since then. And the fourth is brand new, and will probably shock some people to be listed here.

More on all four, how and why each qualifies as Social Darwinistic, etc., below the fold.

Americans were greedy long before Atlas Shrugged

Creative Commons via Alternet

I see a new Alternet column is making the rounds of liberal bloggers, etc., claiming, per the title, that: "Ayn Rand Seduced Generations of Young Men and Helped Make the U.S. into a Selfish, Greedy Nation," and per the subtitle, that: "Thanks in Part to Rand, the United States is one of the most uncaring nations in the industrialized world."

Note: The following comments are not meant as in any way being a personal attack on any of those bloggers, Google+ or Facebook posters. Rather, they're simply my assertion, and documentation, that greed is a far bigger, more ingrained, more diversely rooted problem in America than a simple attack on Randian Objectivism would suggest.

The reality? American greed was around long before Ayn Rand. Look at all the gold rushes, and "salted" gold and silver mines, of 100-150 years ago. Look at the rampant railroad speculation, to the degree that Congressmen accepted stock shares on the floor of the Capitol in the Credit Mobilier scandal. Look at Grover Cleveland's hard-hearted response to the Panic of 1893.

Rand, and Randian Objectivism isn't cause; it's pseudo-intellectual justification for a worship of money and greed that was around long before Ayn Rand popped out of the womb chain-smoking cigarettes as Ann Coulter's fairy godmother. Alexis de Tocqueville, in observing what he perceived as the alleged leveling of class effects in America, cautioned how such leveling and mass democracy would likely lead to a rise in materialism. And he was right.

Beyond that, the success gospel, or prosperity theology, per the Wiki entry, has a history in America, too, arguably going back to Ye Olde Massachusetts. Plenty of proclaimed Christians who would be horrified to be lumped with Rand are, if anything, even greedier than she is.

So, let's get past these attempts to blame Rand for all of today's GOP hard-heartedness just because the likes of a Paul Ryan or Rand Paul are in Congress today.

Prosperity theology, if anything, provides more of a "veneer" for more greed in America than Ayn Rand does. It certainly has a LOT more followers. You can see Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, and others hawking their ideas, sermons and wares all over the place. (I've never seen a Randian website where anybody had a $20,000 marble commode lid for sale like the one Meyer originally has. [Note to Joyce Meyer: Buying shit like that doesn't help you heal from child abuse. Note to Meyer devotees: Wake up and smell the shit in the commode and on her TV show, eh?]) I don't see a Rand channel on cable TV, though. Hell, New Agers, with "The Secret" and older versions of the same idea, are a more integral part of American greed today than is Objectivism.

But, in part because New Ageism is liberal, and because not all success gospel preachers are politically active conservatives, they don't make as easy of targets as do Randians, along with the politicians mentioned above and Alan Greenspan.

But, even in the political sphere, success gospel preachers who are also politically active conservatives surely have more influence than Randians. George W. Bush likely never cracked a page of Rand in his life, but President "Jesus is a philosopher" hung out with success gospelers both black and white.

And, there's another dirty secret. The success gospel isn't limited to white, so it's harder to criticize its effect on American greed for that reason, too. It's a lot easier to bash Alan Greenspan or Paul Ryan than it is the likes of T.D. Jakes.

Beyond that, the column ignores other history. For example, the "charity inducing" Harriett Beecher Stowe? She wound up living in post-Reconstruction Florida and supporting Jim Crow. Nathaniel Branden has moved further beyond Rand than Levine credits. (And, his writing shows it. The Branden of the 1990s and beyond is further separated from Randianism than is the Branden of the '70s or 80s.)

And, per Tocqueville, let's admit that he had a fair degree of true insight about the connection between materialism and modern American democracy. Whether one is "liberal" or "conservative" politically.

In a democracy, especially one that theoretically (if not actually) has class movement, it's actually easier for greed to get inflamed, if anything. This gets back to the Occupy Wall Street protests, too. What needs reform goes beyond even political structures and into social psychology and social structures. That said, perhaps morality can be legislated in some ways, including through more progressive taxation, but this is a virus, a retrovirus that's deeply engrained in America's cultural DNA. Let's not pretend otherwise, whether with simplistic blame games or something else.

For a more in-depth view on this, and on how computerization may actually be making this all worse, read about Adam Curtis' documentary "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace."

I guess what I'm really getting at, ultimately, is what skepticism involves, for me. It's more than just the science-minded skepticism of "professional skeptics." Rather, my skepticism is also influenced by philosophy, and says let's expect to see little in the way of blacks and whites in the world. In an America of 310 million people, now, technology (per Curtis), mass-movement democracy and semi-leveling sociology of the 19th century, and religion, American-style going back to Plymouth (not Jamestown, nor, totally, Santa Fe, N.M., Catholicism) are all factors on American materialism with longer bloodlines and more adherents than Ayn Rand. (Jamestown was secular greed from the 17th century predecessor to a joint-stock company and its board of directors. The Spanish in Santa Fe knew New Mexico held no riches of gold.)

Related to all of this is the issue of "blame." Greed isn't necessarily just a conservative issue. And, greed also isn't limited to money. If we talk about greed for fame and other things, the iGeneration mentality of at least a segment of Occupy Wall Street shows that greed is pervasive indeed.

You and I are greedy. Zen monks from Tibet can be as greedy for fame as Steve Jobs. It's part of who we are.

One could even trot out a "Gods Must Be Crazy" type of claim that private property accelerated greed 10,000 years ago. That said, to the degree it's true, I don't think any anti-Randians want to go back to Paleolithic times. Ditto for those who say we need to go back to "natural living," of course; they never volunteer themselves to be part of the 90 percent of the Earth's population we'd have to kill off to sustain pre-agricultural population.

So, is it Pujols greed or #stlcards ineptitude?

Albert Pujols' wife says the Cards made a per-year offer that was higher than their final one, coming in at 5/$130, or $26M per. So, in essence, Mozeliak/DeWitt would do either a long-term deal or a high-dollar one, but not both. Well, why didn't they offer that not one, but two years ago, replacing not just the option year but the final year of the old contract? Albert, at 33, then could have gone for another 5 years at that point, and probably looked like he was worth the same amount.

Seems like management still kind of screwed this up. (Not that Pujols is a saint, unless "success gospel" is part of his K-JOY hymnal.)

I think that, had this offer been made 2 years ago, right when the Phillies gave Ryan Howard his new deal, Pujols might have done it. But, either a year ago or this year? Nope.

Add to this the fact that the Angels' offer includes a 10-year post-retirement personal services deal, and the Cards just whiffed.

Perry, Bachmann and Merck ... and Mammon as god

Gail Collins has a good column (why isn't she writing more?) on how Michele Bachmann is largely off base on the Merck/Gardisil vaccine deal, other than, of course, the $30K Merck gave Tricky Ricky.

She then notes, near the end, Tricky's support, strong support, of abstinence-only sex ed.

Well, Tricky Ricky, if you really believe that, if you really oppose talking even about condoms, then why do young girls NEED a Gardisil vaccination? If you're 100 percent sure abstinence-only sex ed works, period, end of story, why do young girls NEED a Gardisil vaccination?

Oops. Just one more internal contradiction of Rick Perry. Or, yet just another example of how, like many alleged Christian rightist political and social leaders, there's no contradiction between worshiping Mammon and God because Mammon is their God.

Of course, about no other Republican in the race can make that charge against Perry because they're guilty of it, too. Bachmann and hubby make money off alleged gay-to-straight conversions; they don't do their twisted version of "the Lord's work" for free. Jon Huntsman? Good Mormonism didn't stop Marriott from pay-per-view porn in its hotel rooms. Mitt Romney surely wasn't that clueless about the bribery that brought those Winter Olympics to Salt Lake City. Ron Paul? Celebrating the capitalism that lets a former staffer die at 49 because of lacking health insurance says enough there about his true God. Ditto for most the other GOP.

The one true libertarian in the GOP race, Gary Johnson, is the one candidate who could honestly level that charge against not only Perry, but all the rest. Too bad he's not getting more airplay.

The problem? The Success Gospel, which really is, at bottom line, the Social Darwinist Gospel. Didn't get that new job? Your faith must not be strong enough. And, actually, a more extreme version would say, "God knew that job would be wasted on you, like the man who buried the one talent, and gave it to somebody else instead."

That said, can most Democrats do much better? As long as Democratic presidents and other national leaders play me-too-ism on things like faith-based initiatives, the answer is no. As long as black Democratic support is centered in black churches, many of which loudly preach their own versions of the Success Gospel, the answer is no.

Positivity BS

Tali Sharot, in talking up the desirability of semi-blind, semi-irrational optimism, shows he has never read Barbara Ehrenreich. He's also never read more serious studies on the benefits of pessimistic thinking.

With the BS he offers new college grads, she needs to. Helicopter-mommed students need a good dose of both reality and humility.

Beyond that, the idea of think everything will be rosy? It's a small-scale, individualized version of American exceptionalism. Also, it at least opens the door to some version of social Darwinist thinking, or, among people of certain religious mindsets, success gospel thinking.

Now, in the past, friends and coworkers have known me to promote a certain amount of positivity. That said, mine was of the level of "things will most likely turn out OK in the end," and not, "I'll make senior partner at a major law firm within 10 years."

Second, there's a difference between talking positivity to a small group of friends, where a certain level of realism, and a certain level of "hedging," can be seen. vs. mass psychologizing of 10,000 college grads.

Finally, per the advantages of thinking more realistically at times, "positivity" of Sharot's type can often be denialism. That includes denying these realities — helicopter-mommed students running the asylum, possibly not learning that much.

Trickle-down behavioralism

THAT, behavioralism that runs more people into debt, not trickle-down economic benefit, is the biggest result of increasing income disparity, says Joe Stiglitz, in a must-read story.

Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. ...

The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.

Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe.

The only problem is, is that most middle-class right-wingers still operate on faith in this area, as in many areas of their lives.

Like the young Ronald Reagan, they believe the presence of a shitpile automatically means a beautiful horse is also in the neighborhood. Or, if they believe in their god enough, one will be delivered to them. Or, they continue to believe they can either pressure the nonreligious rich in exchange for their votes on social issues, or that they have common cause.

Or, that class divisions are played up by liberals, or liberals' fault in the first place. (Well, since real liberals haven't been around since LBJ, that's a hard argument to make.)

(Sidebar — this raises the issue of "spillover" in people's religious beliefs and their effects on wider society. But, I don't want to confound stuff too much.)

Anyway, religious or not, I think many rightists, and a fair chunk of centrists, beyond any religious reasons, are still too wedded to American exceptionalism in this area as part of why they resist facing the fact that America is more class-based, in terms of incomes at least, than "old Europe."

Albert Pujols - greedy and un-Christian?

You knew, given how publicly St. Louis Cardinals slugger Albert Pujols, that a story about whether he might be exhibiting un-Christian greed would come up, complete with I Timothy 6:10 quote.

Of course, none of the people worried about this issue have asked Bill DeWitt or John Mozeliak about their faith, or their greed level.

Besides, per "success gospel" Christianity, the more bucks Phat Albert rakes, the more that indicates he's blessed by God, right?

Beyond that, though, petards? Conundrums?

Why does Rick Perry hate the unemployed?

We know he doesn’t believe in evolution, by some of the company he keeps, so he can’t believe that people are unemployed due to Social Darwinism.

Maybe, like some of his Religious Right friends, he believes in the success gospel, in prosperity theology, and so he thinks they’re cursed.

It’s clear, though, that he, along with fellow Southern Republican wingnut governors, hates the unemployed.

Let’s hope the 2010 elections give him a reason to hate himself.

And, if state unemployment eligibility rules get nationalized in the process, GREAT!