Glenn Beck, Nihilist

If you're like me, when you hear "nihilist" you think of someone like Friedrich Nietzsche (as a dapper young man, below), not a radio personality such as Glenn Beck.

But today I thought of Mr. Beck as deeply nihilistic when I listened to his radio show. I confess to a certain fascination in listening to his show. He puts me in a bit of trance actually, and on some commutes, that's nice.

What's not nice is nihilism.  Without being overly pedantic, nihilism is the philosophical (and religious) conclusion that everything is, in the final analysis, meaningless. Meaningless because there is no substance to reality; only transitory impressions and bodies that carry them, and then they all fade to black.

Atheism isn't really the main point (though it certainly implies atheism and an atheist would need to struggle mightyly not to view reality nihilistically.

Perhaps a film clip would help. Lacking that, there is a bit of brilliant dialogue: In Signs, Mel Gibson's Father Hess (how's that for a pair of opposites!) has concluded that "There is no one watching out for us; we are all on our own."

Life, death, love, beauty, justice, goodness and desire all absurd and destined to die with our deaths. Cheers!

Mr. Beck's Nihilism.

Now I don't know exactly Glenn Beck's religion or particular denominational flavor, but functional nihilism is certainly compatible with a belief in God. Functional nihilism is similar to Pelagianism in the moral life: Jesus is an example for us, but we must struggle mightily (and alone!) to perfect ourselves. Beck seems to takes this view and transpose it to the social and political order.

The nothingness in Mr. Beck's world is indicated by the word "we."

• We must do this.
• We must join him now to do that.
• If we don't do something now, what-have-you will happen.

I get exhausted just listening to him. I'm gratified that Mr. Beck's perspective is not, "It's all about me," but all this talk about we and us is a little ridiculous. Our President habitually slips into the egotistical "I" more often than commentators can count, but the less-than-royal We of Mr. Beck contains the same kind of presumption and encourages a kind of group think that is very unattractive.

Being, not being busy.

Albert Borgmann in Holding on to Reality notes that hyperactivity and sullenness go hand-in-hand. Just watch a teenager after playing 12 hours of Halo or somesuch. Busyness is not just for teens and the emptiness that drives busyness is pandemic in our culture today.

At the heart of emptiness lies nihilism: the conclusion that the alternatives are perpetual stimulation or despair from the yawing abyss inside.  The wonder of nihilism is that one can be infected and not even realize it.

Fortunately or not, the truth is that we (there I go!) can't save ourselves, and we can't give ourselves life. Sorry, Mr. Beck, something deeper is at the heart of reality. When we pay attention to that we become fruitful.

Fab four? No, flawed four (gun bills)

This is an exercise is disagreement without being disagreeable (so I hope). It was an email to the Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, Mark Ferrandino, concerning four proposed gun laws.

Dear Speaker Ferrandino,

I must confess that what today's Denver Post characterized as a "broad-ranging package of gun bills" strikes me as myopic: the fixation is on window dressing and there is nothing here that has a credible chance of preventing or discouraging any criminal activity whatsoever. Allow me to raise my objections to each bill:

HB1229 (universal background checks): It is already illegal to knowingly transfer a firearm to a felon or other person barred from ownership/possession of a firearm. I have moral certainty about a host of friends who I could transfer a firearm to, why this bureaucratic mandate to verify what I already know (to wit: Uncle Larry is not a felon?). Suggestion: PSAs that articulate the current law and a catchy slogan such as "When in doubt, don't sell that gun." Or how about a non-punitive way of encouraging background checks, such as a fee-less background check AND a Starbucks gift card. Can't we be a little creative here? The people who will obey this law aren't the ones to worry about.

HB1224 (magazine capacity): 15 round magazine limit? Look, I realize Hollywood does a very poor job of portraying the reality of firearms and their limitations (I'm thinking of Rambo and his infinite supply of ammunition), but do you have any idea how silly this is? All kinds of 15+ round magazines are in circulation and suppose you did get them off the street? Being Mr. Badguy, I will simply buy multiple magazines. Depending upon the firearm, a magazine change can be effected in 2-3 seconds. Criminals may be crazy but they are not stupid nor uncreative - they'll find a way to kill, period. This bill was clearly crafted by people who know nothing about firearms or their use.

HB1226 (carry-free zones): Designate college campuses as carry-free zones? Why not create signage that says "We won't shoot back"? Absurd. Did Mr. Holmes see those firearm-free signs in Aurora and say, "Oh, my bad, I'll go somewhere else to commit an atrocity" or did he see those signs as encouragement to slaughter innocents? Common sense tells us the answer. All this sort of thing does is tell wackos where they are less likely to face resistance, and hence encourages them to ply their twisted trade there. College students who want to minimize the inconvenience to psychos might afix bullseyes to their backs. Hurray!

HB1228 (background fees): A fee for background checks? I believe we still call it the Bill of Rights, not the "Bill of Privileges." Is this part of some deficit reduction package? Perhaps we can charge fees for speaking or writing or praying? That 1st Amendment is such a nuisance and people say the rudest things - let's cash in on it. The possibilities are nearly limitless: first you create a requirement to exercise a right and then you charge people for exercising that right. Clever!

It seems to me that all these initiatives have built in "loopholes" that will require more laws that will eventually turn firearms ownership from a right to a privilege bestowed on the rich and well-connected. You and everyone else at the Capitol have a very nice security detail (and you all deserve it, honestly) - guys and gals with guns - and perhaps don't feel the need for your own firearm. Many of us out here are not so lucky or privileged. We demand no less than that our right to self-defense be not denied or pointlessly encumbered.

I realize our political climate is not conducive to actual constructive dialogue. I get that. But, look, you Democrats have the majority which means you can choose to posture on this issue (as the less-than-"fab" four do) OR you could engage in a real bipartisan conversation about reducing violence. I think are things that people of good will can agree on. I think rights and responsibilities can be accommodated.  And yet it seems that both sides of the aisle are more interested in what is expedient.

Let me conclude by saying that reading today's DP led me to reluctantly (re)join the NRA [I forwarded the email from the NRA].  I don't particularly care for the approach of the NRA (which tends toward the hyperbolic), but after seeing the shenanigans at the Capitol, some sort of countervailing pressure seems necessary. I've been pushed off the fence and I suspect there are many more like me. This might be something to consider.

I beg your indulgence for some of the sarcasm above, but I am truly flummoxed by all this.

Sometimes soundbites speak volumes...

I caught this on the radio (AM 710, KNUS), but I'll have to paraphrase it because I didn't write it down (nor could I find it on the station's website).

In an interview about a sexually explicit texting case at an area school, the principal said in response to a suggestion that students be barred from bringing cell phones to school, "We can't do that, cell phones are so much of their culture."

Ah, yes. The schools don't have a culture of their own to propose; rather, they are in perpetual retreat against the forces of barbarism. Yet another example of how schools simply react instead of acting.

A simple question: What is the purpose of education? If it is just to keep kids busy, well, then yes, the principal is correct: short of killing each other, let them do what they want. If, on the other hand, school is a place where cultural presuppositions can be challenged, then perhaps the cell phones can and should go. Placate or educate? The choice is ours.

How TFA is gutting public education

Some of the best teachers I've met came through the Teach for America pipeline. Young, zealous, and super-smart. Very decent folks.

So why the provocative title to this post?

Perhaps I should have said, "How TFA might gut public education." That may be more accurate. Karl Marx was famous for running all problems through an economic filter, and there may be something worthwhile in asking, "What's the cost/benefit of a TFA teacher versus other teachers?"

This might be too vague. Let's take it from another angle: in this time of scarcer resources, are administrators "better off" hiring inexperienced but enthusiastic teachers or "seasoned" (i.e., old) teachers with years of experience and advanced degrees?

In the current education climate, "better off" is often defined as appearing to always do more with less; maximizing resources, in other words. Since public education tends to mimic corporate structures, the goal is to have interchangeable teachers who can do whatever needs to be done. Since individuality is really a matter of indifference, then Cheapest is Best.

So, yes, administrative careerists will naturally use "raw material" that is cheap in order to keep within budget. That's to be expected.

Teach for America is having some unintended consequences. Ultimately bringing down wages and exchanging experience and competence for enthusiasm may be just two.