Leo Babauta made a good point on his blog Zen Habits (http://zenhabits.net/) this morning, regarding willpower and bad habits.
In many cases, people who want to break a bad habit assume that willpower is the most important element involved. Leo suggests that this isn't true. In fact, it might even be destructive.
Rather, the best way to break a bad habit is to replace it with a good habit. As Leo suggests, "Bad habits fill real needs." Consequently, willing a bad habit away simply leaves an unfulfilled need, and that's no good. In short, willpower alone doesn't seem to correct the issue of which a bad habit is a mere symptom.
So rather than destroying bad habits for no reason, Leo suggests replacing the bad habit with a good habit. The benefits can be numerous. For one, the good habit fulfills the underlying need which originally produced the bad habit. For instance, the need to binge drink so as to socialize might be replaced by a book club, or a running club that meets regularly. As might then be imagined, the good habit could also bring along with it those benefits that make the habit "good" in the first place. Joining a book club not only helps you meet people, but it also encourages regular reading. Joining a running club not only helps a you socialize, but it also helps you exercise reguarly, which is believed to aid health and mental function.
So Leo makes a good point. Humans have needs, and sometimes we fulfill them with destructive or distracting habits. These habits serve a function, even if they have unsavory consequences. Find a more beneficial substitute, and much good may come of it.
A happy Friday to you all :)
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
A choice of the moment
So, will you be a builder or a destroyer? That's not a serious question, but really, which will you be?
What does a builder do? A builder builds things. A builder takes stuff and makes something new out of that stuff. Sometimes other people think the new stuff is pretty cool. "How ingenious!" they say, and compliment the builder for his or her good work. Sometimes other people think the new stuff is rubbish, and will even say so if they feel sufficiently passionate at the moment and have an audience. But really, the important thing is that builders build stuff.
Destroyers destroy stuff. They take things and break them. Sometimes they have a lot of people there to cheer them on, and other times they're all alone. Sometimes destroyers convince others to join them, and a big group becomes a band of destroyers. But the important thing is that destroyers destroy things.
Sometimes a person is a builder one day and a destroyer the next. This might even be the case for many people, but I really don't know. Sometimes a person destroys another's reputation so they can get a job, or make themselves look good to people unfamiliar with their destructive activities. Sometimes people create for no other reason than that they enjoy the process and have no incentive beyond that. And if you can believe it, the same person can fit both descriptions depending on the day.
So really, the question, "Are you a builder or are you a destroyer" isn't a serious question, because a person is usually both at some point. Perhaps instead we might ask, "Are you a builder or are you a destroyer, right now." Yes, perhaps that is more helpful. Which would you prefer to be? Right now, that is.
Happy Thursday :)
What does a builder do? A builder builds things. A builder takes stuff and makes something new out of that stuff. Sometimes other people think the new stuff is pretty cool. "How ingenious!" they say, and compliment the builder for his or her good work. Sometimes other people think the new stuff is rubbish, and will even say so if they feel sufficiently passionate at the moment and have an audience. But really, the important thing is that builders build stuff.
Destroyers destroy stuff. They take things and break them. Sometimes they have a lot of people there to cheer them on, and other times they're all alone. Sometimes destroyers convince others to join them, and a big group becomes a band of destroyers. But the important thing is that destroyers destroy things.
Sometimes a person is a builder one day and a destroyer the next. This might even be the case for many people, but I really don't know. Sometimes a person destroys another's reputation so they can get a job, or make themselves look good to people unfamiliar with their destructive activities. Sometimes people create for no other reason than that they enjoy the process and have no incentive beyond that. And if you can believe it, the same person can fit both descriptions depending on the day.
So really, the question, "Are you a builder or are you a destroyer" isn't a serious question, because a person is usually both at some point. Perhaps instead we might ask, "Are you a builder or are you a destroyer, right now." Yes, perhaps that is more helpful. Which would you prefer to be? Right now, that is.
Happy Thursday :)
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Cleaning room
Over the past several weeks, I have been gradually cleaning my room at home. Let me tell you, it needed a cleaning year's ago, but now at last it has begun, so there.
It's been helpful not to try and tackle the whole project in one great effort, but to make headway each day. In that regard at least, cleaning a very messy room is like marathon training. The end result of cleaning a room, however, is a clean room, or so you hope, whereas with marathon training the end result is often a race. Things don't always turn out as you expect.
Digging through a room not cleaned since the Stone Age can yield a number of interesting finds. I found a book I wrote in 7th grade about renewable energy. I was really into the idea of renewable energy back then, as I am now, and so when an assignment came around about writing a little book for class, I decided that would be the topic of the book. Imagine that.
I also keep uncovering stashes of money, large and small. It seems I started saving money over a dozen times in the last fifteen years, and each time the stash found itself buried under something. In deeming the previous savings lost, I began a new collection, and so on and so forth. Now I keep finding coins all over the place. Usually it is a few dollars in change, though that can mean several hundred pennies in certain cases. Hard to say how much will come to the surface when it's all over, but if you haven't cleaned a room in a while, you might that you own a lot more money than you think.
It's been helpful not to try and tackle the whole project in one great effort, but to make headway each day. In that regard at least, cleaning a very messy room is like marathon training. The end result of cleaning a room, however, is a clean room, or so you hope, whereas with marathon training the end result is often a race. Things don't always turn out as you expect.
Digging through a room not cleaned since the Stone Age can yield a number of interesting finds. I found a book I wrote in 7th grade about renewable energy. I was really into the idea of renewable energy back then, as I am now, and so when an assignment came around about writing a little book for class, I decided that would be the topic of the book. Imagine that.
I also keep uncovering stashes of money, large and small. It seems I started saving money over a dozen times in the last fifteen years, and each time the stash found itself buried under something. In deeming the previous savings lost, I began a new collection, and so on and so forth. Now I keep finding coins all over the place. Usually it is a few dollars in change, though that can mean several hundred pennies in certain cases. Hard to say how much will come to the surface when it's all over, but if you haven't cleaned a room in a while, you might that you own a lot more money than you think.
Of course, you also find that you own a lot more stuff that you quite possible ever imagined. In a mere preliminary sweep of two desk drawers this morning, I probably found close to 400 pens, pencils, colored pencils, and markers. No joke. I separated them into piles, feeling like a weapons inspector trying to tabulate how many of this and that whiz-bang such-and-such had hidden. Finding a home for them could be difficult.
Finally, I've discovered that it is possible to make progress. This project probably began three weeks ago, and the place is still a mess, but let me tell you, real progress has been made. And you know what, I feel better knowing that I'm doing something good not only for myself, but for the house in general. It is far too easy to get inundated with stuff in a society that values consumption. You don't have to abide by the value, but it's easy to get caught up in it if you've got a job. Some folks talk about a house's "carbon footprint" to denote how much pollution a house produces on average, but perhaps we should also talk about a house's "foot-print foot-print," measured by how much stuff the house is housing. Sounds silly, but let me tell you, a house full of stuff can drive a person mad, and we probably don't need anymore things in our modern, technological world with the potential to drive people mad.
So I will keep cleaning room, one day at a time. It has good potential to be a happy place, and while I don't expect to live there more than another year, it would be a nice parting gift to my loving family to leave them a clean room. Such a gift is worth a lot these days.
Happy Tuesday friends :)
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Teacher, what makes you tick?
Jason L. Riley wrote about an interview he had with Bill Gates in this weekend's Wall St. Journal, discussing Mr. Gates' $5 billion investment scheme in education over the past ten years. It's an interesting work, suggesting that a lot has been learned about philanthropy in education since the start of the century, especially the limits of individual donations. The article concludes, among other things, that the precise qualities of a "good" teacher are still unknown, and that Mr. Gates' seeks to do the greatest good with the least bit of boat-rocking.
And perhaps no issue has more potential for boat-rocking than that of judging teachers, a task hated by some and deemed essential by others. Specifics aside, effective teachers appear to be big piece of the education puzzle. As Riley points out, "Teachers have long been shown to influence students' education more than any other school factor, including class size and per-pupil spending. So the objective is to determine scientifically what a good instructor does."
It's a bold claim, yet a substantiated one, and provides the impetus for many current efforts to reform education. Yet it remains unclear precisely what makes a good teacher "good," other than the fact that their students learn substantially more than their peers, and deliver when tested on it. I've heard some people say they can recognize a good teacher when they seem one, but have a hard time articulating those qualities and/or methods that make the teacher effective. Riley asks the question like this: "What is it about a great teacher? Is it their ability to calm down the classroom or to make the subject interesting? Do they give good problems and understand confusion? Are they good with kids who are behind? Are they good with kids who are ahead?"
And it's here that Riley offers some possible insight into the problem. The possibilities he mentions are all plausibile, yet seem insufficient alone. What if one understoond them not as single qualities or methods , but rather as a cluster of related-but-different abilities found in some measure within effective teachers. Perhaps a good teacher is such a cluster in near-optimum proportions; capable of managing a class but not too rigidly; make a subject interesting while remaining true to the facts and ideas; challenge students while providing sufficient support (but not too much); work well with students of below-average ability as well as above. In short, like the star distance-runner who combines high oxygen-uptake with good mechanics, a positive attitude, and reasonable mental toughness; a star teacher perhaps combines faculties of personality, intellect, and industry which together yield good results from their students. What those qualities are is not entirely clear to me, but better research may begin to bring them to light.
Soon perhaps, it will be possible to more effectively isolate those individual qualities and methods that make a teacher "good." Such an achievment could make a scientific assessment of teaching more effective; not simply to identify stud teachers (we can already do that, more or less), but also to assist current teachers as they work to improve their craft.
Arthur Lydiard of New Zealand took a small group of boys from his neighborhood, and applying his understanding of distance-running, managed to turn two of them, Peter Snell and Murray Halberg, into Olympic champions. Neither men showed exceptional promise growing up, yet Lydiard's insights into the variables of a distance-runner helped take both men to the top of their fields. Perhaps the same will be possible with teaching.
Happy Sunday chaps :).
And perhaps no issue has more potential for boat-rocking than that of judging teachers, a task hated by some and deemed essential by others. Specifics aside, effective teachers appear to be big piece of the education puzzle. As Riley points out, "Teachers have long been shown to influence students' education more than any other school factor, including class size and per-pupil spending. So the objective is to determine scientifically what a good instructor does."
It's a bold claim, yet a substantiated one, and provides the impetus for many current efforts to reform education. Yet it remains unclear precisely what makes a good teacher "good," other than the fact that their students learn substantially more than their peers, and deliver when tested on it. I've heard some people say they can recognize a good teacher when they seem one, but have a hard time articulating those qualities and/or methods that make the teacher effective. Riley asks the question like this: "What is it about a great teacher? Is it their ability to calm down the classroom or to make the subject interesting? Do they give good problems and understand confusion? Are they good with kids who are behind? Are they good with kids who are ahead?"
And it's here that Riley offers some possible insight into the problem. The possibilities he mentions are all plausibile, yet seem insufficient alone. What if one understoond them not as single qualities or methods , but rather as a cluster of related-but-different abilities found in some measure within effective teachers. Perhaps a good teacher is such a cluster in near-optimum proportions; capable of managing a class but not too rigidly; make a subject interesting while remaining true to the facts and ideas; challenge students while providing sufficient support (but not too much); work well with students of below-average ability as well as above. In short, like the star distance-runner who combines high oxygen-uptake with good mechanics, a positive attitude, and reasonable mental toughness; a star teacher perhaps combines faculties of personality, intellect, and industry which together yield good results from their students. What those qualities are is not entirely clear to me, but better research may begin to bring them to light.
Soon perhaps, it will be possible to more effectively isolate those individual qualities and methods that make a teacher "good." Such an achievment could make a scientific assessment of teaching more effective; not simply to identify stud teachers (we can already do that, more or less), but also to assist current teachers as they work to improve their craft.
Arthur Lydiard of New Zealand took a small group of boys from his neighborhood, and applying his understanding of distance-running, managed to turn two of them, Peter Snell and Murray Halberg, into Olympic champions. Neither men showed exceptional promise growing up, yet Lydiard's insights into the variables of a distance-runner helped take both men to the top of their fields. Perhaps the same will be possible with teaching.
Happy Sunday chaps :).
Friday, July 22, 2011
Mo Farah wins again
Today in Monaco, British runner Mo Farah won the men's 5000m run in 12:53.11, a new national record, meet record, and leading time in the world for the year. For those not familiar, Mo Farah has been essentially unbeatable on the track and the roads the last eight or nine months, winning the indoor European Championship 3000m and 5000m, the New York City Half-Marathon, the Pre-Classic 10,000m, the 10,000m at the Birmingham meet, and now the 5,000m in Monaco to name only a few. In short, perhaps no male distance runner is running better in the world in 2011 than Britain's Mo Farah, an uncommon occurance in the sport these days where so often distance races have been dominated by runners from East Africa. With the World Championships in Daegu, South Korean a little over a month away, Mo Farah seems the man to beat in the 5 and/or 10k.
Which is why I was a bit surprised to find a thread on Letsrun.com a few hours after the race in Monaco concluded, claiming that Mo Farah's success over the past year was the result of doping. To be fair, fans of many (if not all) sports have dealt with doping among their best athletes at some point recently. Whether it's juiced-up home-run hitters in baseball or alternatively-medicated footballers from North Korea (scientists are still trying to figure that one out), it isn't a stretch to see why followers of sport have become somewhat jaded by the standout performer. Win too many races these days, and you're bound to attract accusations of cheating by some laptop-touting fellow. It would seem a characteristic of the times, and it makes me a touch sad.
Stand-out performances in sport are one important reason why people pay it any attention at all; successful performers attract followers, and unsuccessful performers lose them. And perhaps it is in part because of this relationship that so many talented performers have taken to illegal performance-enhancers. Yet to simply accuse a successful performer of cheating because of his or her recent success is nothing more than a baseless accusation, intolerable in nearly every other arena except sport. Accuse someone on false premises in court, and you could go to jail for libel. The thing is, accusations, even false accusations, can have a negative effect on the accused, and it is of fundamental importance to a free society that a man or woman's reputation is based upon their choices, and not baseless labels contrived by others (political campaigns aside). As there is no evidence that Mr. Farah has ever taken performance-enhancers, the recent thread about him cheating is an assertion without water.
It is for that reason that I will continue to support Mo Farah as he competes and grows as an athlete and as a person. Perhaps one day evidence will emerge that his recent run of success was indeed the result of cheating, but until that time I will give him the benefit of the doubt. It's not easy training as he does, or managing the expectations that go with holding the world lead in the 5k one month out from the World Championships. Personally, I look forward to seeing how he does.
A happy Friday to you all :)
Which is why I was a bit surprised to find a thread on Letsrun.com a few hours after the race in Monaco concluded, claiming that Mo Farah's success over the past year was the result of doping. To be fair, fans of many (if not all) sports have dealt with doping among their best athletes at some point recently. Whether it's juiced-up home-run hitters in baseball or alternatively-medicated footballers from North Korea (scientists are still trying to figure that one out), it isn't a stretch to see why followers of sport have become somewhat jaded by the standout performer. Win too many races these days, and you're bound to attract accusations of cheating by some laptop-touting fellow. It would seem a characteristic of the times, and it makes me a touch sad.
Stand-out performances in sport are one important reason why people pay it any attention at all; successful performers attract followers, and unsuccessful performers lose them. And perhaps it is in part because of this relationship that so many talented performers have taken to illegal performance-enhancers. Yet to simply accuse a successful performer of cheating because of his or her recent success is nothing more than a baseless accusation, intolerable in nearly every other arena except sport. Accuse someone on false premises in court, and you could go to jail for libel. The thing is, accusations, even false accusations, can have a negative effect on the accused, and it is of fundamental importance to a free society that a man or woman's reputation is based upon their choices, and not baseless labels contrived by others (political campaigns aside). As there is no evidence that Mr. Farah has ever taken performance-enhancers, the recent thread about him cheating is an assertion without water.
It is for that reason that I will continue to support Mo Farah as he competes and grows as an athlete and as a person. Perhaps one day evidence will emerge that his recent run of success was indeed the result of cheating, but until that time I will give him the benefit of the doubt. It's not easy training as he does, or managing the expectations that go with holding the world lead in the 5k one month out from the World Championships. Personally, I look forward to seeing how he does.
A happy Friday to you all :)
Monday, July 4, 2011
4th of July
Well, it's the 4th of July, an important holiday in my country. Today we celebrate the declaration of independence from the old British empire; an event which, among other things, intensified the armed conflict between the two parties. It is often customary as well to remember military veterans on this day, thanking them for their service and sacrifice for the sake of the country and its people. There are lots of parades and ceremonies, and barbecue and beer are had by many (though not all, since vegetarian and sobriety are growing in popularity seemingly). For all intents and purposes, the holiday is a popular one so far as I can tell.
Of late, a small but interesting debate has emerged among politicians and writers in this country. The debate in recent times has centered around prospective republican candidate and congresswoman Michele Bachmann's remarks regarding John Quincy Adams and his opinions on slavery. Several writers have come out against Mrs. Bachmann's words, seeking to give her a "history lesson" or two about what such-and-such said about this-and-that. I'm not especially interested in debating the finer points of the history put forward by these writers or Mrs. Bachmann; these sorts of debates are not new. What interests me most is perhaps the way that American history has been used more recently to push ideological programs.
A fairly recent phenomenon in the American electoral scheme is the emergence of a conservative organization known collectively as the "Tea-Party Patriots." Their name, so far as I can tell, is derived from the famous "Boston Tea-Party," where on 16 December, 1773, locals dressed as native americans boarded three tea-laden ships in Boston harbor, dumping the tea into the water in protest against a new British tax on the stuff. As might be imagined, the Tea-Party Patriots of today disagree with most taxes, oppose "large government," and believe that their views most honestly reflect the original intentions of the so-called "Founding Fathers" of the country. Whatever else might be said of them as a group (always a dangerous move), they can and have proved a divisive bunch, disagreeing with main-stream democrats and republicans alike. Michele Bachmann, the congresswoman mentioned above, is a supporter of the group, and chief organizer of the "Tea-Party Caucus" in congress.
Again, it is dangerous, if sometimes helpful, to classify members of groups together. Nevertheless, there would seem to be a worrying under-current to the types of historical aguments made by such conservative groups as the Tea-Party Patriots. As many will no doubt have noticed, the recession of 2008 produced an unemployment situation in the United States that has stubbornly refused to mend under the best efforts of those seeking to remedy it. The failure to produce substantial growth and reduce unemployment, coupled with the sovereign-debt crises in Europe, have likely helped make deficit-reduction a major topic of the time.
Which is where Tea-Party Patriots of other conservatives come in. Many of their views, generalized perhaps unfairly, suggest that a govenment, especially a Federal government, should be limited in the extent to which its powers transgress on the lives of its citizens. Nothing new there really, as folk have been arguing this point in various forms as far back as the country has existed. In short, government mandates, taxes, and spending allocation are but some of the things which some conservative types tend to oppose or closely monitor. I've known folk to argue themselves hoarse that a proper reading of American history suggests that the founding principles of the country vehemently oppose excessive taxation, regulation, government mandate, and overly-ambitious foreign policy. At its core, government should be small, thrify, and most of the time, well out of the way.
Yet I worry. Not because politicians and writers are using and abusing history for their own ends, though it is rather sad, but they've been at it awhile and there seems no stopping them now. No, what I worry more about is that people who seem responsible and intelligent would choose to embrace a simple, semi-mythical interpretation of our country's founders in light of all the nonsense that we see and expect of public figures today.
Not to be overly hostile, but can we really expect that the congress we have today is, on the whole, that much different from the first congress that met 200+ years ago? The few primary sources of the Constitutional Convention that I've read all suggest that delegates of that period had just as much venom at their disposal, and were just as willing to heave verbal-rubbish at one another as has proven true today. Those folks were often interesting people, and some of them sure had a way with words, but that shouldn't prevent us from questioning their ideas, their values, and their behavior, so far as we know it. They were, in short, no more perfect or flawed than you and I.
But this is not a new idea either. In fact, it's as old as the country itself, and most certainly older than that even. As made famous by Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr., "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."It's hard sometimes, but we should remember that even our heroes are human, and for all their great accomplishments, we cannot afford to ignore the lesser angels of their nature. For we may find that a scoundrel teaches us more about ourselves than the perfectly upright; that a man or woman who acts poorly may be a more useful instructor than he or she who never falters.
One thing that I have come to dislike during 4th of July celebrations is the occasional declaration that America is the greatest country on Earth. I use to think that was true, but I don't any longer. It's not a bad country to my mind, though some believe that. I actually think it's a pretty good country, where you can lead a good life (whatever that means to you) if you choose, and can usually find peace of mind if you look hard enough. Yet with travel, time, and study I've found that to be true all over the world, though perhaps not everywhere. Someday perhaps, that will be true. Point is, we the people of the United States have to be careful not to over-esteem nor under-esteem those figures who have done much to bring our history up to the present. It's harder that way, but perhaps such an understanding would more accurately capture the essence of that defining founding idea, that all men (and women) are in fact created equal.
Happy 4th, kind readers :).
Of late, a small but interesting debate has emerged among politicians and writers in this country. The debate in recent times has centered around prospective republican candidate and congresswoman Michele Bachmann's remarks regarding John Quincy Adams and his opinions on slavery. Several writers have come out against Mrs. Bachmann's words, seeking to give her a "history lesson" or two about what such-and-such said about this-and-that. I'm not especially interested in debating the finer points of the history put forward by these writers or Mrs. Bachmann; these sorts of debates are not new. What interests me most is perhaps the way that American history has been used more recently to push ideological programs.
A fairly recent phenomenon in the American electoral scheme is the emergence of a conservative organization known collectively as the "Tea-Party Patriots." Their name, so far as I can tell, is derived from the famous "Boston Tea-Party," where on 16 December, 1773, locals dressed as native americans boarded three tea-laden ships in Boston harbor, dumping the tea into the water in protest against a new British tax on the stuff. As might be imagined, the Tea-Party Patriots of today disagree with most taxes, oppose "large government," and believe that their views most honestly reflect the original intentions of the so-called "Founding Fathers" of the country. Whatever else might be said of them as a group (always a dangerous move), they can and have proved a divisive bunch, disagreeing with main-stream democrats and republicans alike. Michele Bachmann, the congresswoman mentioned above, is a supporter of the group, and chief organizer of the "Tea-Party Caucus" in congress.
Again, it is dangerous, if sometimes helpful, to classify members of groups together. Nevertheless, there would seem to be a worrying under-current to the types of historical aguments made by such conservative groups as the Tea-Party Patriots. As many will no doubt have noticed, the recession of 2008 produced an unemployment situation in the United States that has stubbornly refused to mend under the best efforts of those seeking to remedy it. The failure to produce substantial growth and reduce unemployment, coupled with the sovereign-debt crises in Europe, have likely helped make deficit-reduction a major topic of the time.
Which is where Tea-Party Patriots of other conservatives come in. Many of their views, generalized perhaps unfairly, suggest that a govenment, especially a Federal government, should be limited in the extent to which its powers transgress on the lives of its citizens. Nothing new there really, as folk have been arguing this point in various forms as far back as the country has existed. In short, government mandates, taxes, and spending allocation are but some of the things which some conservative types tend to oppose or closely monitor. I've known folk to argue themselves hoarse that a proper reading of American history suggests that the founding principles of the country vehemently oppose excessive taxation, regulation, government mandate, and overly-ambitious foreign policy. At its core, government should be small, thrify, and most of the time, well out of the way.
Yet I worry. Not because politicians and writers are using and abusing history for their own ends, though it is rather sad, but they've been at it awhile and there seems no stopping them now. No, what I worry more about is that people who seem responsible and intelligent would choose to embrace a simple, semi-mythical interpretation of our country's founders in light of all the nonsense that we see and expect of public figures today.
Not to be overly hostile, but can we really expect that the congress we have today is, on the whole, that much different from the first congress that met 200+ years ago? The few primary sources of the Constitutional Convention that I've read all suggest that delegates of that period had just as much venom at their disposal, and were just as willing to heave verbal-rubbish at one another as has proven true today. Those folks were often interesting people, and some of them sure had a way with words, but that shouldn't prevent us from questioning their ideas, their values, and their behavior, so far as we know it. They were, in short, no more perfect or flawed than you and I.
But this is not a new idea either. In fact, it's as old as the country itself, and most certainly older than that even. As made famous by Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr., "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."It's hard sometimes, but we should remember that even our heroes are human, and for all their great accomplishments, we cannot afford to ignore the lesser angels of their nature. For we may find that a scoundrel teaches us more about ourselves than the perfectly upright; that a man or woman who acts poorly may be a more useful instructor than he or she who never falters.
One thing that I have come to dislike during 4th of July celebrations is the occasional declaration that America is the greatest country on Earth. I use to think that was true, but I don't any longer. It's not a bad country to my mind, though some believe that. I actually think it's a pretty good country, where you can lead a good life (whatever that means to you) if you choose, and can usually find peace of mind if you look hard enough. Yet with travel, time, and study I've found that to be true all over the world, though perhaps not everywhere. Someday perhaps, that will be true. Point is, we the people of the United States have to be careful not to over-esteem nor under-esteem those figures who have done much to bring our history up to the present. It's harder that way, but perhaps such an understanding would more accurately capture the essence of that defining founding idea, that all men (and women) are in fact created equal.
Happy 4th, kind readers :).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)