Maggie's Farm

Driscoll's piece is interesting, but I don't really buy it.

While the descriptions of a declining society may have some meaning to him, they mean little to me.

It's not that I think he's completely wrong. I do agree these are indicators of a larger problem. But they are just symptoms. What good is this information?

Is he suggesting if we suddenly all become polite and nice to each other, stop using foul language our society will improve? I doubt it. Much of the 'polite' behavior of our past had hidden motives. It should come as no surprise to people that the Southern charm of "Well, bless your heart" is meant as an insult.

So I guess it's fine to fade the insults, because that's what polite people do? But even as we're doing that we can still run our economy into the ground, because we've dealt with the politeness issue?

Part of the reason kids pick up cues from the lower classes is because they feel like their good fortune was not earned, and they have left others behind. It's no surprise JD Rockefeller's son became a philanthropist.

It's also no surprise the sole remaining political Rockefeller, Jay, is a Democrat in West Virginia. But I'm sure he's a most well-mannered person.

My kids don't dress like low-class dregs, they don't speak like them, and they don't behave that way either. But there are aspects that they've picked up. They love rap and hip-hop, which I'm ambivalent about (some people hate it, my view was my parents couldn't stand my music and that made me love it more, so I have actually been complimentary of some hip-hop and rap, even teaching my kids the history of rap music so they can appreciate it in a way others can't). They are good libertarian/Republicans, who feel bad for those less well off, but aren't willing to give away the farm.

We need more people to engage the kind of thought Vince Lombardi spoke of:
"None of us is born equal, in spite of everything they say about it -- we are born only in certain inalienable rights. But we are born rather unequal. However, I want to say that the talented are no more responsible for their birthright than the underprivileged are and the measurement of each man should be what each does and I want to say that it is becoming increasingly difficult to be tolerant of a society who has sympathy only for the misfit, only for the maladjusted, only for the criminal, and only for the loser.

I think we should have sympathy for them, certainly. I think we should help them, certainly. But I think it is also the time in this country to cheer for, to stand up for, to slap on the back the doer, the achiever, a man who recognizes a problem and does something about it, the winner."

http://www.conservativeforum.org/essaysform.asp?ID=12129

I don't care if someone uses foul language. In some ways, I trust that person more than the one who does not.
Behaviors, on the other hand, tell boatloads.

The 'good ol days' remind me about reading Ball Four in 1974 or so, when I was 12.

I was scandalized to learn my athletic idols used such foul language and engaged in dirty behavior.

Remember, that WAS the good old days.

The very idea the use of bad language was rare back then is selective memory.

The only comment regarding language and the good old days was from Band of Brothers, when Sgt. Guarnere later commented on the program by saying something like they definitely cursed quite a bit, though he didn't remember the 'F' word as much as it was used in the HBO series.

Final sentence should read "The only comment which makes sense regarding"