Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
I had to make some arrangements with someone. I’ll leave it unmentioned who, but it’s a person with whom I am entangled in a financial way for the time being, which is awkward since she doesn’t look at money the way I do. Also, I had to add her to my bank account as a payee, from one bank to a different bank, which I figured out was a matter of business I should resolve by going into the branch and speaking with a human, the old-fashioned way. There is a history of these things getting FUBAR’d, it used to be mildly aggravating, then it got humorous, then it got tedious — THEN, it happened a few more times and I’m just tired of it.
Well, yeah, of course the cashier can’t help with something like that, so I was sent off to wait for a banker. And wait I did; not exactly brimming with exuberant optimism or high spirits at the beginning of it, I was left to pickle for awhile, long enough for my weekend errand schedule to get rearranged a bit, which is frustrating in itself on a Saturday. I picked the wrong branch, and maybe I picked the wrong forum as well. Two bankers, tied up with two customers. On and on it went, sit and sit I did. Sit, and listen to the endlessly repeating dialogue with the young couple-with-baby trying to explore their options now that they’d found they couldn’t open a checking account. Ugh. This was aggravation on steroids, because you had to feel for the baby and the parents, plus the banker was handling it completely the wrong way. The old “Let’s make this a compassionate conversation by making it forty-five minutes long, and about two or three minutes of useful stuff.” What were the takeaways. Well, there’s the possibility that the outstanding matter might be cleared up, and you’re legally entitled to get a free credit report by doing blah blah blah.
It turned out I wasn’t waiting for the end of this, because another banker eventually freed up. And then didn’t help very much. But, sitting there, mulling over how people think about money, and how they are encouraged to think about it when they’re at what we might call the “scratching and clawing” phase of life, I had time to think about something: We really do not do much to encourage the insolvent to become solvent. You hear a fair amount about people of all ages being encouraged to “go back to school,” that’s about as close as the advice ever comes to what would seem to me to be most needed: Find ways to improve your value.
What is it that you’re doing, if anything at all, to make this economy go? Is there a gap between whatever that is, and your true potential? How do you translate that gap into action? That’s the bulls-eye; “maybe you should think about going back to school” approaches it, but doesn’t hit very close to the mark at all. And that’s about as close as we ever seem to come.
“You’re legally entitled to get a copy of your credit report as long as it’s just once a year” doesn’t hit the hay bale. It doesn’t even land inside the same archery range.
And here’s my gripe: What’s the opposite? “Oh well, there’s more to life than making money!” That one…THAT one…we hear all the freakin’ flippin’ time. And I’m entirely unsure about why that is. Who says this? Who listens to it? Who believes it? Oh sure, it’s true in the strictest, most technical sense. But my point is, so what? There’s a lot more to life than picking your nose, which isn’t easy, but people manage to get that done don’t they? There’s more to life than saving a baby trapped in a burning house, but if someone is put in the position of having to try for it, you’d want them to succeed wouldn’t you? Well, wouldn’t you?
I hate this phrase with the passion and radiant heat of a thousand suns. It’s just stupid. It envisions conflict within the act of simply generating an income or making a profit. As far as crass generalizations go, it would be much more correct to envision service to one’s fellow man within such things.
“More to life than making money” is the polar opposite of what young people need to hear. It’s just a turnkey solution phrase we say, not because it works, but because that’s what old people have always said to young people. It’s like “clean your plate”; common sense should immediately tell you this is a recipe for getting fat and staying fat, and maybe the advice should be “lock it up in clean Tupperware when you aren’t hungry anymore.” We read and listen to stories every single day, about so-and-so in these dire straits because the IRS ruled on such-and-such a matter in such-and-such a way…or, his wife has such-and-such a health drama going on and it isn’t covered. Alright then, we live in an age in which fortune is fickle. And the fickle fortune, is the fortune of basic survival. This has always been the case; in fact, looking at it from a long view, we happen to be the generation that has it the easiest, and we still haven’t reached the point where there are any guarantees.
The conclusion to all this is: If you’re in that thing that I described up above as “what we might call the ‘scratching and clawing’ phase of life” — SCRATCH. And CLAW. Maybe, if all it takes to wipe out our illusory solvency is a routine physical that finds a malignant lump or a brain cloud, we should act like it. Go to school if that’s how you can maximize your income. Learn a new trade. Get this job, quit that job, job-hop like a little jitterbug if you have to, whatever it takes.
This is all just an extension of that other thing it seems like young people aren’t being told anymore: If you’re going to play, play to win. And, you have to play. Have kids, but be married and able to support the kids before you have the kids. And be able to support the marriage before you have the marriage. Have good ideas, implement all of the very best ones, and make sure you get your cut whenever you implement a good idea. If you lose, find a way to make your ideas better, and better, and better still, until you win. Then keep winning until you’re obscenely rich, teach those kids of yours how to do the same, feel no guilt and sleep well.
That is the advice we should be hearing more often. The truth is, though, we’re not hearing that, we’re hearing the “more to life than making money” nonsense. And we’re hearing it because we’re embroiled in a culture war, between those who accept that we live in a universe of cause-and-effect, and those who reject this. And those who reject it, are winning. These are the “you didn’t build that” people, the people who think all good things and all disasters are spontaneous, and there’s nothing for us to do about any of it, in prospect or in retrospect. You’ve heard Patton’s quote “I wouldn’t give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed”; these are the losers-and-laughers who are winning. The paradox is obvious, don’t ask me to explain it, it’s their way — they lose at everything except arguments about whether it’s good to lose. They will always win, culturally. Their way is so much easier. That’s why it is so important that every person who desires success, learns to think with autonomy, as an individual.
It truly is a conspiracy to keep the masses poor, discouraged, malnourished, dispirited, apathetic and stupid.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Money
Oh wait. It get’s BETTER!
Um, no, “we” can’t issue a credit card. Despite your balance, your “credit” rating isn’t high enough.
(SOME merchants I care about get REAMED on Debit Card “fees”)
“SO, If I paid off ALL my debts (including big ticket items), in full, in a timely manner, with ZERO complaints or “issues”, how would that reflect on my “Credit” score?”
Oh, well, it would be almost non existent! Same as a serial defaulter! You MIGHT consider an introductory secured…
“No thank you. I’m not stupid. OK, just “free” checking. ”
Credit Rating=likely ability to give 110%.
- CaptDMO | 06/01/2014 @ 12:18Well, sure. A “credit rating” is really a likely-profit-rating. That’s one of may things kids should be taught in…well, when could we have understood the relevant concepts, back in the day? Eighth grade, sixth maybe? Heck, it probably would have been much easier for the pragmatic-types of students to pay attention.
- mkfreeberg | 06/01/2014 @ 12:23“And be able to support the marriage before you have the marriage.”
I think you’ve got it backwards here. One truth that was well understood in previous generations, and which has been only recently and inexplicably lost, is that marriage is not a barrier to prosperity, it is a generator of prosperity. You don’t (and shouldn’t) wait until you are prosperous enough to support a marriage — the marriage itself helps you become prosperous.
So marry — marry young — because the marriage will help you support yourself and your future.
- cloudbuster | 06/02/2014 @ 00:36Well, that bites off something that takes a great deal of chewing. Yeah, it’s a great point because if one marriage anywhere has that sort of an effect, then they all should. But not all of them are like that, so how come that is?
Some people don’t bring anything. Some guys want the woman to work so they can sit at home and play with toys. Some women don’t bring anything to the table at all except the ability to make babies and more babies; but, still want to spend money, as much as they want.
Before we tell people they need to marry young, we need to carefully consider how, and if, they’re going to weed out such people.
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 04:21In our church (and I suspect many others) we make a big deal about marriage preparation, which hopefully does weed out those who aren’t going to be taking things very seriously. But one day or one weekend (whatever the approach) is not going to undo many years of not taking things seriously. The larger society used to take this approach to life, so it used to me mere reinforcement. Now that it has grown increasingly frivolous, turning out great heaps of twentysomething-aged children rather than adults, it falls to a shrinking few to stand athwart culture, crying “PAY A LITTLE ATTENTION, WOULDJA?”
One of the unpopular things I like to say about Pre-Cana classes is that if even one couple decides to call it off, we’ve done our job. It should be a weed-out course, in part – not just a celebration of what marriage is and can be, but a sober realization that you have to both be prepared for life together. It’s more than just prepping a great reception.
- nightfly | 06/03/2014 @ 13:02mkfreeburg: “Before we tell people they need to marry young, we need to carefully consider how, and if, they’re going to weed out such people.”
nightfly: “One of the unpopular things I like to say about Pre-Cana classes is that if even one couple decides to call it off, we’ve done our job.”
I’m ambivalent. I certainly can’t argue against giving young people realistic advice and cautions about marriage. However, statistically, marriage is a tremendous predictor of success and stability in future life. Too few people are getting married, too late in life, and too few people are staying married. I worry that we’re giving so many cautions that we’re making marriage out to be scarier than it really is. I think we could honestly use a bit more of “OK, you crazy kids, give it a try!” and more post-marriage support and guidance.
Honestly, if it doesn’t work out, a childless divorce isn’t a really consequential event in the big scheme of things, and I think the tremendous rise in single parenthood isn’t primarily caused by kids getting married too young. The age of first marriages has been rising right along with the single parenthood and divorce rates, so I don’t think there’s much if any evidence that early marriage is a primary cause of single parenthood.
Also, as a guy who got married at 24, before I’d finished my Bachelor’s degree and has been raising kids steadily ever since (I’ve got five kids ranging from 8 to 28), I’d say several things. First, having kids is a young man’s game. I don’t bounce back as quickly as I did when I was in my 20s. Having a marriage and kids doesn’t automatically push you in the direction of being a stable, contributing member of society, but there are still strong cultural and maybe even biological impulses in that direction. For every deadbeat parent, there are probably a couple dozen that put their childrens’ welfare at the forefront of every major decision they make. We’re wired that way. Marriage isn’t something to do when you have everything else right and are the perfect potential mate and parent, it’s a journey, something that builds you into a good parent and mate.
If more kids were embarking on it at 18, before they were so screwed up, and getting lots of societal support when doing it — help with finances and childcare during college, etc. — instead of the constant drumbeat of “you’re too young,” “enjoy your youth first,” “see the world,” “wait until you’re more settled,” then I think we’d be doing kids a service.
- cloudbuster | 06/03/2014 @ 14:13Making my point for me:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/05/28/the-saddest-scariest-millennial-statistic-youll-see-today/
“Millennials lead all generations in the share of out-of-wedlock births. In 2012, 47% of births to women in the Millennial generation were non-marital, compared with 21% among older women. … In 1996, when Gen Xers were about the same age that Millennials were in 2012, just 35% of births to that generation’s mothers were outside of marriage (compared with 15% among older women in 1996).”
“Millennials are slower to marry than previous generations. They have moved the median marriage age up to 29 for men and 27 for women.”
- cloudbuster | 06/03/2014 @ 18:54“Too few people are getting married, too late in life, and too few people are staying married. I worry that we’re giving so many cautions that we’re making marriage out to be scarier than it really is. I think we could honestly use a bit more of “OK, you crazy kids, give it a try!” and more post-marriage support and guidance.”
In theory I have no disagreement with this at all. In practice it’s tougher. Prior generations got ample preparation for marriage by simply growing up in a stable home, in a community of stable families, with society’s full support of marriage and married couples. This whole system was attacked and undermined, using the short-sighted (to say the least) rationale that it was merely cultural and learned behavior – I’ve heard it called “patriarchal brainwashing,” the evergreen “heteronormative,” and etc. etc.
As a result, nearly every one of those supports is gone, and society at large is reaping the whirlwind.
So a more formal training is required, if for no other reason than to rehabilitate the concept of marriage and make people willing and capable of a lifetime commitment to spouse and children. And that’s why I’ve said that those unready for it, or who find themselves betrothed to incompatible partners, ought to realize it before the vows. It’s not to discourage marriage itself, but to encourage people to seek out a good match.
Taken too far the other way, yeah, it’s counterproductive. Like anything in this life it’s a balancing act. I married just short of 35, and believe me, I wish I had met my wife 15 years earlier. Then again, would either of us at the time have been capable of a good relationship? I’m going to go ahead and say that 20-year-old me was a lunkhead who didn’t know the first thing he needed to about life… and I would have bollixed the whole arrangement. The girl I did meet fifteen years earlier, and whom I would have wed, wound up with another guy for precisely this reason. Meeting and marrying a great woman a little later in life was a better outcome for all concerned.
- nightfly | 06/04/2014 @ 07:55When I was a wee lad, the joke was that women went into marriage expecting everything to change, while men expected nothing would. It was funny because it was true, and it was useful because it helped both parties overcome their expectations. It was designed to help couples stay together.
Which means it probably qualifies as “hate speech” now. If you ever need ironclad proof of liberalism’s mental vacuity, look no further than their attitude towards marriage. Their favorite word is “social,” but all their policies seem designed to destroy the bedrock institution of society.
- Severian | 06/04/2014 @ 13:19